Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Chetna Sikdar – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Mehta – Respondent
RFA 556/2025 | CM. APPL. 37087/2025 | CM. APPL. 37088/2025 | CM. APPL. 37089/2025 | CM. APPL. 37090/2025 | CM. APPL. 76860/2025 | CM. APPL. 77041/2025 | CM. APPL. 80296/2025 | CM. APPL. 11470/2026 | CM APPL. 11471/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhinav Sharma, Ujjawal Jain
For the Respondents: Jaya Goyal, Manpreet Kaur

A court may pass a judgment on admissions for possession and rent recovery where the defendant admits the landlord-tenant relationship and fails to raise a substantial, non-evasive defense, provided the transferee of property has legitimate standing through registered transfer instruments to initiate such recovery proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Judgment on admissions - Duty of court to determine if there is an unequivocal admission regarding jural relationship of landlord and tenant - Once tenancy is admitted and landlord-tenant relationship is established, court can decree suit for possession without trial where there is no genuine triable issue. (Paras 66, 73)

(B) Transfer of Property - Ownership and Title - Efficacy of registered power of attorney and agreement to sell - A transferee under such instruments for consideration, having been put in possession, steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner, enabling them to maintain a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. (Paras 59, 79)

(C) Evidence Act - Section 116 - Estoppel of tenant - A tenant inducted into property is estopped from challenging the title of the landlord during the continuance of the tenancy or while remaining in possession. (Para 76)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits following the expiry of a lease agreement by efflux of time. The occupant contested the suit, raising questions regarding the validity of the ownership transfer documents executed by the erstwhile owner and denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The trial court decreed the suit under the provision for judgment on admissions, concluding that the occupant had admitted to being a tenant and failed to specifically deny the jural relationship in the pleadings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the occupant had failed to specifically deny the terms of the initial lease agreement. Furthermore, bank records showing consistent payments coinciding with lease terms confirmed the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Documents transferring proprietary rights, including registered agreements, were deemed sufficient to entitle the transferee to collect rent and seek recovery of possession.

Issues: Whether the suit could be decreed on admissions without a full trial and whether the transfer documents conferred sufficient locus standi to the new owner to claim possession and rental recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a defendant admits to the relationship of landlord and tenant and fails to provide a legitimate, non-evasive denial, the court is empowered to grant a decree for possession and arrears of rent based on such admissions. The transferee of property rights through registered instruments stands in the position of the landlord and is entitled to maintain recovery proceedings against the defaulting tenant.

Result: Decree of the lower court upheld; appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of the tenancy and transfer of ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. defendant's plea of non-tenancy and contestation of the summary judgment application. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. challenges regarding procedural fairness and validity of title documents. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
4. respondent's defense of valid title transfer and tenant defaults. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
5. analysis of tenancy admission and validity of successor-in-interest. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81)
6. final confirmation of eviction order and dismissal of appeal. (Para 82)

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Order and Judgment dated 28.05.2025 whereby the learned District Judge-02, New Delhi, has decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff / Respondent, Mr. Vinod Kumar Mehta, for Recovery of Possession of the Suit Property, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

2. The Plaintiffs / Respondent filed a Civil Suit bearing DJ CS No. 3287/2024 for Possession, Recovery of Arrears of Rent and mesne profits along with pendente lite and future interest and Permanent Injunction.

3. The facts in brief as narrated in the Plaint, are that the erstwhile owners i.e. Mr. Prabir Barua and Smt. Kana Barua, had let out the Ground Floor of the Suit Property to the Defendant, Ms. Chetna Sikdar/Appellant vide Lease Deed dated 19.05.2023, on a monthly rent of Rs.27,000/-, for a period of 11 months, exclusive of electricity, water and common service charges of the society. Clause 10 of the Lease Deed provided for payment of Rs.2,000/- per day as damages, if the Defendant failed to vacate the Property on the expiry of the Lease along with the monthly rent. The Defendant had paid a refundable security of Rs.27,000/- to the Plaintiffs. The Lease commenced from 19.05.2023 and expired on 18.04.2024 by efflux of time.

4. The plaintiff asserted that after a few months of commencement of the Lease, the Defendants stopped paying rent since November, 2023, to the erstwhile owners, despite repeated requests and demands. After the expiry of the Lease on 18.04.2024, the Defendant was under the obligation to vacate the Suit Property.

5. The respondents purchased the suit property from the erstwhile owners i.e. Mr. Prabir Barua and Smt. Kana Barua through registered documents, namely, registered Agreement to Sell, registered GPA, registered Will, all dated 27.08.2024. They stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and became the exclusive owners and landlords of the Suit Property.

6. The Legal Notice dated 29.08.2024, was served upon the Defendant informing her that the demised premises has been sold and transferred and Plaintiff No.1, Mr. Vinod Kumar, has been authorised to collect the arrears of rent and mesne profits, from the Defendants.

7. The appellant was called upon to pay the arrears of rent and damages, totalling to Rs.6,17,249/- until 15.09.2024, which she failed to pay. The Defendant was claimed to be an unauthorised occupant w.e.f. 19.08.2024.

8. The Plaintiffs thus, filed a Suit for Recovery of Possession, recovery of Arrears of Rent of Rs.3,10,500/- and Damages/Mesne Profits of Rs.3,11,750/- @Rs.2,000/- per day w.e.f. 19.04.2024 till 15.09.2024 aside from water charges and also for Permanent Injunction for restraining the Defendant from creating third party interest in the Suit Property.

9. The Defendant in her Written Statement stated that Mr. Mr. Prabir Barua and Smt. Kana Barua, were the Lessee of DDA. She claimed that in terms of the Perpetual Lease Deed dated 22.08.2025, she beca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6506

Cases Referred (6)