In a second appeal, concurrent findings of fact regarding service of process and occupancy termination are final unless proved perverse; furthermore, the institution of a suit for recovery of property operates as a valid legal notice for termination of residency.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant to assail the Judgment and Decree dated 23.03.2026, whereby the learned District Judge, in RCA DJ No. 4/2026, upheld the ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated 09.01.2025, of the Ld. Civil Judge decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for possession and recovery of pendente lite and future damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 8,000/- per month from 18.12.2020 till recovery of possession, along with interest @ 6% per annum.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd., filed a Suit bearing CS No.926/2020 seeking Possession, recovery of pendente lite and future damages/mesne profits, along with interest.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the Plaintiff/Respondent was that it was the owner/landlord of the premises constructed at Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi–110003, the leasehold rights whereof were stated to be vested in the Plaintiff/Respondent under the Land & Development Office (L&DO), Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. The present Suit was filed in respect of Garage No. K-11, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi–110003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”), which was given to the Defendant/Appellant through oral tenancy at a monthly occupation charges of Rs.4195/- inclusive of water and service charges.

4. The Plaintiff had earlier instituted an Eviction Petition bearing E. No. 31/2015 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in respect of the Suit Property, which was allowed vide Order dated 12.01.2017 by ld. SCJ-cum-RC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The benefit under Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was given to the Defendant, upon deposit of arrears of rent calculated at the then applicable rate of Rs.3,316/- per month and the Eviction Petition was finally disposed of.

5. Subsequently, the applicable use and occupation charges in respect of the Suit Property stood enhanced from time to time, and pursuant to Notice dated 12.11.2018, it became Rs.4,195/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2019.

6. The Plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the Appellant/Defendant vide Notice dated 04.12.2013, and that any amount received thereafter, was accepted only towards use and occupation charges. Without prejudice thereto, it was stated that the present Suit itself be treated as a notice of termination of tenancy.

7. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant was misusing the Suit Property for commercial purposes, without the consent or knowledge of the Plaintiff and contrary to the terms of the lease granted by the Land & Development Office. However, the Defendant has continued the misuser, despite various Notices asking to stop the alleged misuse.

8. The plaintiff asserted that the use and occupation charges in respect of the Suit Property was in excess of Rs.3,500/- per month, and the tenancy of the Appellant/Defendant already stood terminated. Thus, the Appellant/Defendant had no subsisting right to continue in possession of the Suit Property and was liable to hand over vacant possession thereof.

9. Also, being in unauthorized occupation of the Suit Property, the Appellant/Defendant was also liable to pay damages/mesne profits @ Rs.8,000/- pe