$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 87/2026, CM APPL. 5444-5446/2026 BHUPINDER PAL SINGH .....Appellant Through: Appearance not given.

versus PREM NATH NANGIA (DECEASED)

THROUGH LRS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Mr. Krishna Datta Multani, Mr. Joel James, Mr. Harsha, Ms. Ankita Yadav, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 03.02.2026

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC read with Order XLI CPC has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, to challenge the Judgment and Decree dated 05.08.2025 passed by learned District Judge under Order XII Rule 6 CPC whereby the Suit for Possession filed by the Respondent has been decreed.

2. The brief facts are that a Suit for Possession and Mesne Profits was filed by the Respondent, against the Appellant Tenant. It was asserted that the Appellant was inducted as a tenant in the premises bearing No.J-397, 2^nd Floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, admeasuring 107.03 Sq. Mtrs. vide a Lease Deed dated 16.08.2016 for a period of 11 months @ Rs.43,000/- per month. On expiry of the Lease period, it was renewed for further 11 months vide Agreement dated 07.09.2017 for 11 months at the enhanced rent of Rs.45,000/- per month, on similar terms and conditions.

3. The Plaintiff/Respondent claimed that the Appellant defaulted in payment of rent several times, and an e-mail dated 03.07.2017 was sent to the Appellant indicating an inclination not to renew the Lease Agreement after expiry of 11 months w.e.f 31.07.2018. A further request was made to the Appellant to vacate the premises and to clear the outstanding dues on account of non-payment of rent for preceding five months from February, 2018 to July, 2018. Despite Notice and receipt of e-mail, the Appellant failed to pay the arrears of rent which had accumulated to Rs.8,82,000/-. A Legal Notice dated 07.10.2019 was issued despite which the Appellant failed to vacate the premises. Hence, the Suit for possession, was filed.

4. The Defendant/Appellant in his Written Statement denied that he was in illegal Possession of the Suit property. It was asserted that the relationship with Plaintiff changed from Landlord and Tenant, to that of a Lessor and Lesee, as the Defendant had on various occasions made a cumulative payment of Rs.15 lakhs to Pankaj Nangia who was claiming himself to be an Attorney of the Plaintiff at his Office/Residence Office, due to ill health of the Plaintiff.

5. Subsequently, an Application under Order VI rule 17 CPC was filed and the amount was enhanced from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.45 lakhs.

6. The Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was filed by the Respondent for a Judgment on Admissions.

7. The learned District Judge considered the rival contentions of the parties and held that the relationship of Landlord-Tenant was not disputed. The existence of a fresh Lease Deed dated 16.08.2016 for a period of 11 months and a subsequent Lease Agreement dated 07.09.2017, was admitted by the Appellant. The Legal Notice was duly served upon the Appellant, though its service was denied by him.

8. The learned District Judge considered the defence of the Appellant that he had paid on various occasions a cumulative amount of Rs.45 lakhs. It was held that firstly that the defence taken in the Written Statement, was vague.

9. The Appellant had tried to improve and inaccurate its defence in his Reply to the Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, by claiming that there was an execution of another Lease Deed i.e. the third Lease Deed dated 04.01.2019 between Prem Nath Nangia and Defendant for a period of ten years. As per the Appellant, there was a recital in the said Lease Deed that sum of Rs.45 lakhs has been received by the Plaintiff/Respondent on various occasions which would remain as a security and no rent would be payable by the Appellant for the next ten years and the monthly Lease amount would be adjusted from the interest which is accruing on the said amount. After expiry of period of ten years, t