$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 1167/2025, CM APPL. 80900/2025, CM APPL. 80901/2025, CM APPL. 80902/2025 and CM APPL. 80903/2025 RAJINDER KAPOOR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bimlesh Kumar, Ms. Tahseen M.

Siddique and Mr. Jogender Singh, Advocates.

versus GURCHARAN KAUR .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026

1. Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant, Sh. Rajinder Kapoor against Judgment and Decree dated 01.11.2025, whereby the Suit for possession, in respect of property bearing M-10, West Patel Nagar, Delhi consisting of two rooms set (hereinafter referred as Suit property) has been decreed against the Appellant/Defendant under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C.

2. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Ms. Gurcharan Kaur has filed a Suit for Possession, Declaration, Recovery of Damages / Un-authorized Use, Occupation Charges and Permanent, Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant/Appellant.

3. The Plaintiff asserted that she was the owner of the suit property which was let out to Defendant/Appellant vide Rent Deed dated 09.09.2009 for a period of 11 months @ Rs.7,000/- per month. Subsequently, Rent Deeds were being executed from time to time between the parties. Last Rent Deed was executed on 22.05.2022, for a period of 11 months commencing from 10.05.2022 to 10.04.2023 @ Rs.14,300/- per month exclusive of electricity and water charges. Plaintiff/Respondent claimed that Defendant/Appellant has become an un-authorized occupant in the Suit Property after the period of tenancy expired on 10.04.2023.

4. The Defendant/Appellant filed a Civil Suit bearing No.556/2023 titled as Sh. Rajinder Kapoor vs. Ms. Gurcharan Kaur, copy of which was served upon the Plaintiff. She then came to know that Defendant/Appellant had prepared a false and frivolous Receipt of Rs.7,50,000/- dated 10.12.2010, wherein it was mentioned that Plaintiff/Respondent had taken the loan of said amount from the Defendant/Appellant therein. The Plaintiff/Respondent denied having received such loan amount from the Defendant/Appellant and also denied the execution of Receipt dated 10.01.2010. It was claimed that Defendant has set up the concocted story of loan of Rs.7,50,000/-, merely to harass the Plaintiff/Respondent and to prepare a false defence to avoid payment of rent.

5. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant failed to hand over the possession of the Suit Property despite repeated requests and demands after expiry of the Rent Agreement dated 10.04.2023. She, thus filed the suit for Possession, Declaration that the Receipt be declared null and void, Permanent, Mandatory Injunction and mesne profits.

6. The Defendant/Appellant in his Written Statement, admitted the relationship of landlord-tenant. He also did not challenge the rate of rent, as was mentioned in the Plaint. The only defence taken was that the Defendant/Appellant, has filed a Counter-Claim in Civil Suit No.556/2023 wherein he has claimed that Plaintiff/Respondent had approached the Defendant/Appellant for financial help at the time of his daughter’s marriage and Defendant/Appellant, on account of cordial relationship, had given loan of Rs.7,50,000/- on a nominal rate of interest @ 15 % per annum. The Plaintiff/Respondent had undertaken to return the aforesaid amount when the Defendant vacated the suit property, whereas the interest was agreed to be paid monthly. It is further claimed by the Defendant/Appellant that Plaintiff had been paying the interest regularly.

7. Learned Trial Court noted that the relationship of the landlord- tenant was admitted between the parties and therefore, in the light of said admission, decreed the Suit for Possession under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C.

8. Aggrieved by the Judgment, present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Defendant on the grounds that it has not been appreciated that documenta