The burden of proving a landlord-tenant relationship rests on the party asserting it. Initiation of rent control proceedings, without a written agreement or substantiated payment evidence, fails to create a protected tenancy, leaving the occupier liable as a trespasser for mesne profits based on prevailing market rates.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Property law - Tenancy disputes - Burden of proof. The onus of proving a landlord-tenant relationship lies upon the party asserting such a relationship; in the absence of a written lease or rent deed, mere invocation of rent control proceedings does not conclusively establish the existence of a tenancy. Mere filing of applications before a rent controller does not substitute for proof of a valid tenancy especially when the relationship is fundamentally disputed. (Para 20)

(B) Mesne Profits - Determination of damages for unauthorized use and occupation - Assessment methodology. Where a suit for possession is decreed against a trespasser, the awarding of mesne profits can be based on evidence of prevailing market rates from similarly situated properties, provided such evidence remains unrebutted during the trial. (Paras 22-24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a trial court decree for recovery of possession and damages, maintaining that an oral tenancy existed at a specified rental rate. The respondent, as the owner, contended that the premises had been occupied by the appellant as a rank trespasser after a prior tenant vacated. The trial court found that the evidence presented by the appellant failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship and thus decreed the suit in favour of the respondent, awarding damages for unauthorized occupation.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the appellant failed to produce any lease agreement or consistent oral evidence to support the claim of tenancy. The court affirmed that proceedings under rent control statutes are not in themselves sufficient to prove a tenancy when the relationship is contested. The court further held that the assessment of damages based on comparative lease agreements of nearby properties was reasonable and justified.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the sufficiency of evidence required to prove an oral tenancy and the reasonableness of the methodology used to calculate mesne profits for unauthorized occupation of commercial premises.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a written contract, the burden of proving an oral tenancy lies heavily on the occupant. Assertions of tenancy that lack cogent, corroborative evidence cannot be accepted to defeat a claim for recovery of possession from an unauthorized occupant. Furthermore, evidentiary gaps regarding the specific rental amount may be bridged by referring to established market trends or agreements of comparable properties.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

$~J-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 02^nd April, 2026 + RFA 362/2024 RAM GOPAL MISHRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Atharv Bhardwaj, and Ms. Nayanika Tahlan, Advocates.

versus MEHTA ROSHAN LAL AND SONS .....Respondent Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Rishabh Dheer, Ms. Aishwarya Singh, Ms. Rupam Jha, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Mr. Vaibhav, Mr. Sarthak Bhardwaj, Mr. B.A. Pamidighantam and Mr. Prateek Srivastava, Advocates.

+ RFA 298/2024 MEHTA ROSHAN LAL AND SONS .....Appellant Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Rishabh Dheer, Ms. Aishwarya Singh, Ms. Rupam Jha, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Mr. Vaibhav, Mr. Sarthak Bhardwaj, Mr. B.A. Pamidighantam and Mr. Prateek Srivastava, Advocates.

versus RAM GOPAL MISHRA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Atharv Bhardwaj, Ms. Nayanika Tahlan, Advocates for R-1.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

J U D G M E N T

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.

RFA 362/2024 CM APPL. 31876/2024 (stay)

By way of the present appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 („CPC‟), the appellant – Ram Gopal Mishra impugns judgment and decree dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge – 04, North District, Rohini District Courts, Delhi in suit bearing CS DJ No. 59588/2016, whereby the learned trial court has decreed the respondetn‟s suit seeking recovery of possession of shop bearing No. C-20, situate at Chaudhary Hari Singh, New Subzi Mandi, Azad Pur, New Delhi („suit property‟) along with the reliefs of permanent injunction and recovery of damages. The appellant was defendant No. 1 and the respondent was the plaintiff in the suit.

2. Notice on the present appeal was issued vidé order dated 27.05.2024;

whereafter reply dated 21.11.2024 has been filed in the matter.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

3. Vidé order dated 25.11.2024, almost at the inception of the present appeal, the learned Predecessor Bench had passed the following order:

“3. The appellant has assailed the judgment and decree for restoration of possession of property under Section 5 Specific Relief Act. As reflected from record, the appellant had set up a case of tenancy before the Trial Court and in that regard, the impugned judgment, especially at pdf 47-48 needs to be examined. Therefore, till next date operation of the impugned judgment and decree is stayed.”

4. This or der was challenged by the respondent by way of SLP (C)

No.10230/2025; and vidé order dated 07.04.2025, the Supreme Court had disposed-of the SLP, requesting this court “to consider the desirability” of disposing-of CM APPL. No. 31876/2024 seeking stay of the impugned judgment and decree, on 08.05.2025 or soon thereafter. The parties were also granted liberty to file their reply/rejoinder to CM APPL. No. 31876/2024.

5. Reply dated 15.04.2025 has come to be filed to CM APPL. No.

31876/2024. As recorded in order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Registrar, the appellant had stated that they do not wish to file rejoinder to that application.

6. Arguments on the application were heard on two dates; and considering the contours of the arguments made on CM APPL. 31876/2024, the appeal itself was taken-up for disposal.

7. The court has heard Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant; and Dr. Amit George, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

8. Mr. Sharma submits, that suit bearing CS DJ No.59588/2016 was filed by the respondent (plaintiff) seeking possession of the suit property alongwith the reliefs of permanent injunction and recovery of pendenté lite and future damages. Learned counsel submits, that the learned trial court has rejected the appellant‟s (defendant No.1‟s) contention that he was a tenant in the suit property under the respondent for a rental of Rs.2,000/- per month; and has accordingly proceeded to decree the suit against the appellant.

9. Challenging the decision of the learned trial court, learned counsel for the appellant has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIRAM GOPAL MISHRA – AppellantVersusMEHTA ROSHAN LAL AND SONS – RespondentRFA-362/2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAM GOPAL MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
MEHTA ROSHAN LAL AND SONS – Respondent
RFA-362/2024