Possession without lawful title lacks legal validity, and unproven ownership claims do not confer rights in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant (arrayed as Defendant No.4 in the civil suit), assails the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2025 [hereinafter referred to as Impugned Judgment/IJ] passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as LDJ]. By way of the impugned judgment and decree, the civil suit filed by Respondent No.1 (arrayed as Plaintiff in the civil suit) seeking possession by way of ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages for wrongful use and occupation in respect of the built- up basement floor, without terrace roof rights of property bearing no.13/31, situated at WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’], came to be decreed in his favour.

2. For the sake of clarity, consistency and ease of reference, the parties in the present appeal shall be referred to in accordance with their respective status before the LDJ.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to comprehend the issue falling for consideration of this Court, relevant facts are required to be noticed.

4. The Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property, having purchased the same vide a registered Sale Deed dated 24.06.2003. Thereafter, the suit property was leased out to Defendant No.1 for the purpose of carrying on his business, by way of a registered Lease Deed dated 01.06.2007 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Lease Deed’], at an agreed monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-, with a stipulation that the rent would stand enhanced by 5% after every 11 months. Subsequently, Defendant No.1, continued to occupy the suit property, through Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4, who also paid the rent.

5. It may be highlighted that the Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 are the daughter and the son-in-law, respectively, of the Defendant No.1, whereas Defendant No.4 is the brother of Defendant No.3. It was the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants paid the rent only upto 01.04.2020, at the agreed rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month, and that no further payments were made thereafter. Following the default of payment of rent, the Plaintiff approached them on several occasions, both in person and by way of a legal notice dated 21.12.2022, calling upon them to vacate the suit property. However, in the absence of any positive response from the Defendants, the Plaintiff was left with no choice but to terminate the Lease Deed vide notice dated 05.01.2023. Thereafter, the Plaintiff instituted the civil suit on 19.07.2023, which came to be contested only by Defendant Nos.1 and 4.

6. It was the case of Defendant No.1 before the LDJ that, after the initial lease period of 11 months, he surrendered the possession and has since not been residing in India. It was further stated that Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had also left India several years ago and have settled in Dubai. The Defendant No.4 filed a separate written statement, claiming that he had purchased the suit property from Smt. Bela Bose, the stepmother of the Plaintiff, in the year 2012 by virtue of an oral agreement, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 70,00,000/-, which, according to him, stood paid in full.

7. It was also his case that, upon payment of the entire sale consideration, he approached Smt. Bela Bose for execution of the sale deed; however, she refused to execute the same, claiming that the amount paid by him had been adjusted towards rent and insisting upon payment at the prevailing market rate. Following an altercation, the matter was reported to the police; although she initially expressed willingness to settle, the sale deed was ultimately not executed. It was further alleged that the Plaintiff, in