Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
Murari Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Meenakshi Singh -Respondent
RFA 700 of 2025
Decided on : 01-08-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. M.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pradeep Tyagi and Mr. Ridam Tyagi, Advocates
A tenant cannot achieve ownership through adverse possession if their possession is acknowledged by a rental agreement reflecting a landlord-tenant relationship.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 and Order XII Rule 6 - Adverse possession - Claim filed by appellant against eviction - Court decrees possession in favor of plaintiff based on admissions made by appellant in court - Appellant's claim of adverse possession dismissed as unsupported, emphasizing that tenant cannot claim adverse possession against the landlord. (Paras 10-20)
(B) Natural Justice - Upholding the principles of natural justice in legal proceedings - Trial court's decision expedited based on admissions was challenged by appellant for lack of hearing, though the court found no violations of due process. (Paras 12-18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant occupied the suit property under written but unregistered rent agreements dating back to 2009. The respondent filed a suit for possession, which was decreed in favor of the respondent based on the appellant's admissions of being a tenant.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the appellant's claims regarding adverse possession were meritless given the acknowledgment of the landlord-tenant relationship through the agreements.
Issues: Primary issues included the validity of the rental agreements, the nature of possession, and the rights resulting from long-term occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: Court affirmed that admissions about the tenant's status cannot be reconciled with claims of adverse possession, emphasizing the legal requirement for tenancy and the implications of unpaid rents and legal notices.
Result: Appeal dismissed; appellant allowed two months to vacate the property.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the case initiation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual background regarding possession. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's reasoning on adverse possession. (Para 10 , 11 , 15) |
| 4. arguments on procedural fairness. (Para 12 , 16) |
| 5. final directives to the appellant. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
CM APPL. 46770/2025 (exemption)
Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
RFA 700/2025
CM APPL. 46769/2025 (stay)
1. By way of the present regular first appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellant inter alia impugns judgment and order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in suit bearing 17 CS No. 2699/24, whereby the suit filed by the respondent seeking a decree of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits was decreed, based on an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC filed by the respondent.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Pradeep Tyagi, learned counsel appears for the respondent on advance copy; and accepts notice.
4. Considering the contours of the matter as discernible from the record; and in view of the contents of the impugned judgment, the matter is taken-up for disposal at the stage of issuance of notice itself.
5. From the record, it is seen that summons in the suit were issued on 22.11.2024, pursuant to which the appellant (defendant in the suit) entered appearance on 06.02.2024 and filed his written statement dated 23.12.2024 as well as an additional written statement dated 27.03.2025.
6. Subsequently on 08.04.2025, the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which was taken-up for hearing on 03.06.2025, on which date the defendant appeared in- person and submitted that he did not want to engage counsel to represent him in the matter and that he would address arguments on the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC himself.
7. In this backdrop, on 03.06.2025the appellant‟s statement was recorded under Order X Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under:
“Statement of Sh. Murari Mohan, S/o Sh. Prayag Ram, Aged about 55 years, R/o H.No.881, Pocket-D, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95, Aadhar Card No.220502419189, Mobile No.9811636987.
On SA
I am defendant in the present case. The rent agreements dated 23.04.2009, 23.04.2014 and 07.09.2016 bear my signatures. The aforesaid rent agreements were executed between me and plaintiff. I came into the possession of the suit property on the basis of rent agreement dated 23.04.2009. I have also received the legal notice dated 08.06.2024.
I am giving the statement voluntarily without any force, pressure, coercion, misrepresentation and undue influence from any quarter.”
(bold in original; underscoring supplied)
8. It is pertinent to record that in Written Statement dated 23.12.2024 filed by the appellant, he stated the following:
“1. That the real owner of the suit property, i.e., Flat No. 881, Ground Floor, Pocket-D, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095, is Mrs. Meenakshi Singh, the Plaintiff in the present case.
“2. That the said suit property was transferred to the Defendant through an unregistered agreement dated 23rd April 2009, and defendant have been in possession of the property since that date till today dated 18th December 2024 and have been continuing.(Annexure —A)
“3. That defendant have been residing in the suit property from 23rd April 2009 till date, and my possession has been continuous, peaceful, uninterrupted, exclusive, open, hostile and known to real owner. (Annexure -B)
“4. That the nature of defendant’s possession of the suit property is hostile, continuous, and uninterrupted, and the following documents substantiate the same:
a) MTNL Telephone Bill and Gas Bill showing possession of the property since 2009 (Annexure-C).
b) Defendant’s possession has been peaceful, and there has been a cordial relationship between defendant and the Plaintiff. There has never been any dispute
