* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 29^th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 13^th April, 2026 + RSA 23/2026, CM APPL. 6232-6234/2026 GULSHAN KHURANA C/o Shop No.3517/11 & 3517/12 Kumar Building, Qutub Road, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sumit Goswami, Advocate versus MANJU MONGA W/o Sh. Rajender Monga R/o A-14, Church Compound, Bajoria Road, District Saharanpur, U.P. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anju Lal and Ms. Shalu Lal, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2025, passed by the Ld. District Judge-12 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCA No. 119/2024, whereby the learned First Appellate Court has upheld and affirmed the Judgment and Decree dated 19.07.2024, passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-08 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 3629/2019, vide which the suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits has been decreed.

2. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the Plaintiff/Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 3629/2019, for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits/rent. The Defendant was inducted as a tenant in the year 2001 in respect of Shop No.3517/11 and 3517/12 situated on First Floor, Kumar Building, Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Suit Property’) on a monthly rent of Rs.13,500/- besides electricity and water charges. The rent was payable in advance on the commencement of each calendar month.

3. The Defendant failed to pay rent for the month of August and September, 2019 despite repeated requests. A Notice dated 19.09.2019 was sent to the Defendant terminating his tenancy and seeking recovery of peaceful and vacant Possession. He was also asked to pay the arrears of rent. 4. The Notice was duly served upon the Defendant/Appellant on 23.09.2019 and the one sent through Speed Post was served upon him on 25.09.2019, but he failed to comply with the same. The Suit for Possession, Recovery of Arrears of Rent/Mesne Profits @ Rs.40,500/- was thus filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent.

5. The Appellant/Defendant had contested the Suit and filed his Written Statement, wherein he had asserted that the Plaintiff/Respondent had suppressed material facts. It was admitted that the Plaintiff was the owner of the property and the Defendant was a tenant. It was clarified that in respect of Suit Shop bearing No.3517/11, the rent was Rs.1200/- per month while for the Shop No.3517/12 the rate of rent was Rs.1800/- per month.

6. It was further submitted that since the rent was less than Rs.3,500/-, the Suit for Recovery of Possession was barred under Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 and the Suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

7. On merits, all the averments made in the Suit with regard to the rate of rent were denied. It was also denied that the rate of rent was Rs.13,500/-

per month.

8. The Defendant admitted receiving the Legal Notice, but asserted that he thereafter had a talk on telephone with the husband of the Plaintiff who assured him that there was nothing to worry and that the Notice got issued due to a misunderstanding.

9. It is further submitted that in the year 2018 the Suit property required repairs as the Plaintiff along with her brother from the roof damaged the ceiling. The Defendant had requested the husband of the Plaintiff for repairs, but the husband refused to do so. The water was leaking from the roof because of which the goods of the Defendant worth more than one lakh got damaged. The Defendant, therefore, stopped paying the rent and no money Decree can be passed against him.

10. The Defendant further asserted that the brother of the Plaintiff was the owner of one shop in the same building and had sold it for Rs.5 lakhs in the year 2016. It was at the same time t