$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 29.01.2026 Judgment delivered on: 24.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: As per Digital Signature~

+ RFA(COMM) 678/2025 CM APPL. 76289/2025 JAI NATH YADAV & ANR. .....Appellants versus SOMNATH YADAV @ SHOBH NATH YADAV & ANR .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Srivastav, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Raghunath Dubey, Adv CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

1. The present regular first appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.2025 [‘impugned judgment’] passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [‘the Trial Court’], in a suit instituted by the Respondent [‘the Plaintiff’ therein] seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, etc., against the Appellants [‘the Defendants’ therein].

2. The factual matrix as set out in the appeal is as follows: -

2.1. The suit before the Trial Court was filed by the Respondent in its capacity as the owner and the landlord of property bearing no. R.A.-28, Gali No. 11/12, Chetan Basti, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi- 110005 [‘the property’], built up to the first floor.

2.2. It was asserted in the suit that in December 2013, Appellant No. 1 approached the Respondent with a request to take the ground floor of the property on rent for the purpose of running a factory [‘the suit property’]. Consequently, the ground floor of the suit property, comprising a hall, was let out to Appellant No. 1 for a period of eleven [11] months at Rs. 23,000/- per month [exclusive of water and electricity charges]. The Respondent asserted that at the request of Appellant No.1 on account of financial hardship, the monthly rent was lowered to Rs. 21,000/- per month for the period of 15.10.2016 to 14.09.2017. The last extension was made on 25.10.2016 for the said period of eleven [11] months. It was stated that the tenancy was extended from time to time through rent agreements, two [2] of which, dated 25.02.2015 [Ex. PW-1/3] and 25.10.2016 [Ex. PW-1/4] were relied upon.

2.3. It was stated by the Respondent that thereafter, no further agreements were executed inter se parties, and the tenancy continued on a month-to-

month basis.

2.4. It was stated that the Appellants defaulted in payment of rent, failed to vacate the premises and started asserting wrongful claims of ownership rights in the suit property. In these facts, a legal notice dated 15.02.2019 [Ex. PW-1/7] was issued, terminating the tenancy, demanding arrears of rent, and calling upon the Appellants to vacate the suit property within a period of fifteen [15] days.

2.5. The legal notice was duly replied to on 02.03.2019 [Ex. PW-1/10] wherein the Appellants admitted the landlord-tenant relationship inter se parties; however, they disputed that any rent was due or that they were liable to hand over possession of the suit property.

2.6. It was stated that the Appellants have initiated false and perverse legal proceedings against the Respondent, to continue in possession; therefore, the Respondent filed the suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, etc.

3. The Appellants filed their written statement wherein they admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se parties. They, however, disputed the veracity of the rent agreements dated 25.02.2015 [Ex. PW-1/3] and 25.10.2016 [Ex. PW-1/4] relied upon by the Respondent, instead, they propounded a rent agreement dated 07.04.2015.

3.1. In addition, the Appellants also relied upon the documents: a Bayana receipt dated 19.06.2018 [Ex. PW-1/DX-1]; a loan agreement dated 21.12.2015 [Ex. PW-1/DX-2]; a security agreement dated 28.12.2015 [Ex.

PW-1/DX-3]; and an ancillary receipt [Ex. PW-1/DX-4].

On the basis of the aforesaid documents, the Appellants contended that the parties had entered into an agreement to sell [‘ATS’] with respect to the su