The court held that the suit for possession was not maintainable due to the absence of a verified landlord-tenant relationship and that the relevant rental amount fell below the jurisdiction of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 50 and 502 - Suit for possession and arrears of rent - Appellant, tenant of property, disputed landlord-tenant relationship with respondent, claiming tenant was RMGIPL - Respondent failed to establish her ownership prior to eviction notice - Court ruled learned ADJ's judgment lacked legal foundation, presumption, and credibility. (Paras 1, 20, 36-49)

(B) Suit maintainability - Suit was not maintainable as the rent amount was below the threshold under DRC Act - Respondent could not recover rent under the claimed circumstances. (Paras 41-42)

(C) Relationship of landlord and tenant - No legally established relationship between the appellant and respondent - The actual tenant was recognized as RMGIPL. (Paras 44-46)

Facts of the case:
The appeal contested a lower court's decision granting possession and arrears of rent towards a property claimed by the respondent, which the appellant disputed, asserting no landlord-tenant relationship existed and claiming payments were made to the actual landlord Sneh Sharma.

Findings of Court:
The lower court's ruling was overturned, identifying a lack of credible evidence establishing the respondent's ownership and dismissing the case as improperly framed regarding tenancy credentials.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the maintainability of the suit and proof of rental obligations owed to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the lower court's assumptions were unfounded, asserting the appellant maintained a valid defense against the suit, reinforced by pre-existing court orders regarding rental payments and tenant status.

Result: Appeal allowed, suit dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction and factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. appellant's rebuttal and legal context regarding tenancy. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. issues framed and evidence presentation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. court's findings on the evidence and conclusions drawn. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. appellant's grounds for appeal and critique of lower court judgment. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37)
6. determination of maintainability and tenant relationship. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
7. final decision and dismissal of the suit. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

JUDGMENT

Facts

1. This first appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), challenges the judgment dated 14th October 2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS 15690/16 (Smt. Butna Devi v. Shri Brij Mohan). The appellant was the defendant in the said suit and the respondent was the plaintiff.

The Plaint

2. The respondent, vide CS 15690/16, sought recovery of possession, from the appellant, of the first floor of Property No. XV/8929, Gali No. 1, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, Delhi ("the tenanted premises", hereinafter), alongwith arrears of rent @ Rs.20,000/- per month and mesne profits.

3. The respondent claimed to be the owner of the first and second floors of the afore-noted property No. XV/8929, Gali No. 1, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, Delhi ("the suit property", hereinafter), having purchased the property from Kuldeep Kaur and Sanjeev Kumar vide Sale Deed dated 23rd March 2019. The plaint averred that the appellant Brij Mohan Rasiwasia was the tenant of Kuldeep Kaur and Sanjeev Kumar and that, after selling the suit property to the respondent, Kuldeep Kaur and Sanjeev Kumar had informed the appellant of the said sale and requested him to pay rent, thereafter, to the respondent. The respondent also claimed to have requested the appellant to pay rent to her, after April 2009.

4. The appellant was said to be a tenant in respect of the first floor of the suit property, where he was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of plywood.

5. The plaint averred that the appellant was in default of rent on and after April 2009. It was averred that the tenancy was on month-to-month basis, @ Rs.50,000/- per month. As such, the plaint averred that the appellant was liable to pay rent, to the respondent, @ Rs.50,000/- per month for the period April 2009 till 31st December 2012 which totaled to Rs.22,50,000/-.

6. The respondent claimed to have issued a legal notice to the appellant on 10th December 2012, calling on the appellant to vacate the suit property and disgorge the arrears of rent due to the respondent. The appellant, vide reply dated 26th December 2012, denied any liability in this regard.

7. It was in these circumstances that the respondent instituted the afore-mentioned CS 15690/16, seeking recovery of possession, from the appellant, of the suit property, along with arrears of rent and mesne profits.

Written statement by the appellant

8. The appellant, in his written statement, by way of response to the suit, denied the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself. The written statement alleged that the tenanted premises were let out by Sneh Sharma to M/s Rasiwasia Marble & Granite Industries Pvt Ltd ("RMGIPL", hereinafter), which was the tenant in respect thereof, since 1984-1985. Sneh Sharma, therefore, was the landlord, according to the written statement, and RMGIPL was the tenant. The appellant was, undisputedly, a Director in RMGIPL.

9. The appellant, in the written statement, also professed ignorance of Kuldeep Kaur and Sanjeev Kumar whom he claimed never to have met. The written statement also denied any knowledge of sale, by Sneh Sharma, of the suit property to the respondent. It was specifically averred that no rent had been claimed, from th