RSA 126/2026 Page 1 of 16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 23

rd

July, 2026

Pronounced on: 07

th

September, 2026

Uploaded on: 07

th

September, 2026

# CNR No. : DLHC010321222026

+ RSA 126/2026, CM APPL. 46845/2026

MOHD. MAHBOOB

S/o Late Sh. Allah Rakha

R/o House No.6859, First Floor, Gali No.18,

Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. .....Appellant

Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate.

versus

1. MST. ARSHI QURESHI

Wife of Sh. Ateeeq Ur Rehman

R/o H. No.6190, Third Floor, Nawab Road,

Basti Harphool Singh, Delhi.

2. MST. IRAM

Wife of Md. Ali

R/o H. No.6857, Gali No.18,

Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. .....Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

1. The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC’) has been filed

on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant against the Judgment and Decree

dated 08.07.2026, whereby the learned District Judge, Delhi, in RCA

No.216/2025, upheld the Judgment and Decree dated 03.11.2025 of the

learned Civil Judge, Delhi, decreeing the suit of the Plaintiffs/Respondents

RSA 126/2026 Page 2 of 16

for possession and recovery of arrears of rent and damages/mesne

profits @ Rs.1,000/- per month, against the Appellant/Defendant.

2. The Plaintiffs/Respondents, Mst. Arshi Qureshi & Anr., filed a Suit

bearing CS No.236/2022 seeking possession, recovery of arrears of rent

and damages/mesne profits, along with permanent and mandatory

injunction.

3. The facts in brief, are that Mst. Sahar Bano @ Chaman, w/o Md.

Hanif, was the sole, exclusive and absolute owner of property bearing

Municipal No.6859, Gali No.18, Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi

(hereinafter the “suit property”) having been purchased from its erstwhile

owner for valuable consideration, by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated

27.01.1992. She expired on 26.08.2015 and was survived by the Plaintiffs as

her legal heirs and they became the owners of the suit property to the extent

of ½ share each.

4. Plaintiffs claimed that at the time of purchase of suit property by

Mst. Sahar Bano @ Chaman, the property was already in use, occupation

and possession of different tenants, as was mentioned in the Sale Deed

itself. Sh. Allah Rakkha s/o Sh. Khuda Baksh was mentioned as a tenant

in respect of First Floor/ bala khana, comprising of one room, kitchen,

bathroom and dalan, at a monthly rent of Rs.20/- excluding all other

charges.

5. On purchase of the suit property by Mst. Sahar Bano@ Chaman, Sh.

Allah Rakkha became her tenant, by operation of law. In fact, he also

attorned in her favour and started making payment of monthly rent to her.

After the demise of Sh. Allah Rakkha, his wife Mst. Fatima, six sons and

four daughters, inherited the tenancy rights in respect of the suit property

RSA 126/2026 Page 3 of 16

and became the tenants of the plaintiff, by operation of law.

6. It is claimed that after the demise of Sh. Allah Rakkha, his Legal Heir

stopped making payment of monthly rent to Mst. Sahar Bano, despite

repeated requests and approaches. Consequently, she issued a Legal Notice

dated 14.02.2007 through her counsel, terminating the tenancy of the legal

heirs of Sh. Allah Rakkha and called upon them to hand over the vacant and

peaceful possession of the suit property to her and also to clear the areas of

rent.

7. Upon service of Legal Notice, Defendant approached and informed

the Plaintiff that except the Defendant Sh. Mohd. Mahboob, all other legal

heirs have left the premises and are not residing there. Therefore, Defendant

requested the Plaintiff to accept him as the only tenant and to allow him to

continue to reside in the tenanted premises. The Defendant agreed to

enhance the rent w.e.f. 01.04.2007 @ Rs.3,000/- per month and further

agreed to enhance the rent by 10% after every three years. The rent, last

payable, was at the rate of Rs.4,393/- per month, excluding all other charges.

8. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant was a habitual and chronic defaulter

in making payment of rent and he has neither paid nor tended rent w.e.f.

01.06.2019 at the rate of Rs.4,393/- per month, resulting in accumulation of

areas of rent in the sum of Rs.1,36,121/-, which has not been paid to the

Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff further claimed that she is entitled to interest

@ 18% per annum on the areas of rent.

9. Plaintiff further asserted that substantial damage and alterations in

the tenanted premises have been carried out illegally and unauthorizedly,

without the written consent and permission of the Plaintiffs. Resultantly,

cracks have appeared on the Ground Floor portion, which have resulted

RSA 126/2026 Page 4 of 16

into weakening of the entire structure. Plaintiff approached the Defendant to

desist from making such additions and alterations, but Defendant failed to

listen to the Plaintiff.

10. Complaints dated 25.11.2021, 27.11.2021 and 28.11.2021 were made

to Police and Complaints dated 26.11.2021 and 28.11.2021 were made to

NDMC. The Plaintiff asserted that in order to carry out necessary repairs on

the Ground Floor, they would have to spend at least Rs.3,00,000/-, which the

Defendants are liable to reimburse.

11. Plaintiffs issued Legal Notice dated 07.12.2021 terminating the

tenancy and demanding the user and occupation charges @ Rs.7,000/- per

month, which is the prevailing rate of rent in the locality. The Plaintiffs,

thus filed the Suit for Possession, Arrears of Rent, Mesne Profit and

Damages.

12. Defendant, in the Written Statement, asserted that Plaintiff is guilty of

suppressing the material facts and the Suit is based on falsehood. It was

denied that there existed a relationship of landlord-tenant between the

parties. It was specifically averred that Defendant has become the owner of

the suit property, as nobody claimed the ownership of the suit premises.

13. On merits, it was denied that Defendants are in unlawful and illegal

possession of the suit property. It was denied that Plaintiffs are the legal

heirs of Mst. Sahar Bano or are the owners of the suit property. It was also

claimed that no Sale Deed has been shown to the Defendants in favour of

Mst. Sahar Bano. It is also denied that Ms. Sahar Bano was the owner of the

suit property.

RSA 126/2026 Page 5 of 16

14. It is further denied that she died on 26.08.2015 or that the Plaintiff

have acquired the ownership in the suit property.

15. It is admitted that Sh. Khuda Baksh was a tenant in the suit premises

and Receipts were duly issued by the landlord of the suit property. It is

however, denied that there existed relationship of landlord-tenant between

the parties or that they ever atoned Sh. Allah Rakkah, as her tenant.

16. It was admitted that Sh. Allah Rakkah was survived by his wife, eight

sons and four daughters, but it was denied that the legal heirs stopped

making payment of rent. It was denied that the Legal Notice dated

14.02.2007 was ever served upon the Defendants or that the alleged tenancy

was ever terminated.

17. It was also denied that Defendant entered into any oral Settlement

with Mst. Sahar Bano to enhance the rent to Rs.3,000/- per month or to its

increase by 10% after every three years. It was also denied that the rent

became Rs.4,393/-, at the time of filing the Suit. It was reiterated that the

Defendants have never atoned to the Plaintiffs.

18. It is further asserted that no rent was ever paid to the Plaintiffs w.e.f.

01.06.2019 at the rate of Rs.4,393/-. In fact, there was no amount due from

the Defendant and the claim for Rs.1,36,121/-, is not tenable. It was thus,

submitted that the Suit was liable to be dismissed.

19. Plaintiffs, in the Replication, reaffirmed the assertions made in the

Plaint and denied the allegations made in the Written Statement.

20. Issues of the pleading, were framed on 01.12.2023 as under:

“1. Whether the defendant is the tenant of plaintiffs in the

suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 4,393/-? OPP

2. Whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent of

RSA 126/2026 Page 6 of 16

Rs. 1,36,121/-? OPP

3. Whether the defendant has illegally refused to handover

the possession of suit property to plaintiffs? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed material facts

from the court? OPD

5. Whether the present suit is barred u/s 50 of The Delhi

Rent Control Act, 1958? OPD

6. Whether the defendant is illegally threatening to create

3rd party interest in the suit property? OPP

7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of

possession of suit property? OPP

8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of recovery

of arrears of rent of Rs. 1,36,121/- alongwith interest? OPP

9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of mense

profits? If yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP

10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of

permanent injunction as sought? OPP

11. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of

mandatory injunction as sought? OPP

12. Relief and Cost.”

21. Plaintiffs, in support of their case, examined PW-1 Mst. Arshi

Qureshi, Plaintiff No.1, who tendered her evidence by way of Affidavit

Ex.PW-1/A. She also proved the documents i.e. Sale Deed dated

27.01.1992, Death Certificate of Mst. Sahara Bano, Legal Notice dated

07.12.2021, Postal Receipt, Reply to Legal Notice and Site Plain, as Ex.PW-

1/1 to PW-1/7.

22. Defendant Md. Mahboob, in support of the defence as taken in the

RSA 126/2026 Page 7 of 16

Written Statement, examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence

by way of Affidavit Ex.DW-1/A.

23. He examined DW-2 Md. Ata, who tendered the evidence in support

of the defence taken by the defendant.

24. The learned Civil Judge, on consideration of the evidence, held that

the Defendant had denied his status in the suit property as that of a tenant,

but had claimed that he had become an owner after the demise of Sh. Allah

Rakkha, as none came to claim ownership and the Defendant has acquired

ownership in the suit property. He denied having ever atoned to the

Plaintiffs or Mst. Sahar Bano as a tenant.

25. In view of the evidence, it was held that Defendant was an

unauthorised occupant in the suit property, having repudiated the ownership

of the Plaintiffs. It was thus, held that the bar of Section 50 of The Delhi

Rent Control Act, 1958 and Section 19 Slum Areas (Improvement and

Clearance) Act, 1956 were not applicable.

26. It was further held that after the service of Legal Notice, Defendant

became unauthorised occupant of the suit property and failed to vacate the

suit property. Consequently, the Suit of the Plaintiff for Possession was

decreed.

27. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were also granted arrears of rent at the rate of

Rs.20/- per month w.e.f. 01.06.2019 till 31.12.2021 along with interest at

the rate of 9% per annum. Further, mesne profits were granted at the rate of

Rs.1,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2022 till the vacant and peaceful

possession was handed over to the Plaintiffs.

28. The Suit of the Plaintiffs was accordingly decreed vide Judgment

dated 03.11.2025.

RSA 126/2026 Page 8 of 16

29. Aggrieved by the said Judgement of learned Civil Judge dated

03.11.2025, Defendant Md. Mehboob filed the First Appeal bearing No.

RCA DJ 216/2025.

30. Learned District Judge concurred with the Judgement of learned

Civil Judge and dismissed the First Appeal vide impugned Judgment dated

08.07.2026.

31. Aggrieved by the said Judgements of learned Civil Judge and learned

District Judge, Appellant / Defendant has filed present Regular Second

Appeal.

32. The grounds of challenge are that both the Courts have overlooked

the assertions made by the Appellant / Defendant in his Written Statement,

the reply to Legal Notice and the evidence Affidavit, that his ancestors had

been inducted as tenants in the suit property at the rate of Rs.20/- per month

and that the rent was regularly paid by them against the Receipts.

33. Both the Courts have erroneously relied upon the averment made in

the Written Statement that for last 60 years nobody came to collect the rent

and that Defendant / Appellant never paid rent to the Plaintiffs/Respondents

and thus, he became the owner in the suit property.

34. The Courts have created a new case, despite the admission of the

Defendant of his ancestors being the tenant in the suit property. There is no

law in Delhi that once the tenant denies the ownership / title of the

landlord, an Eviction Order would follow against him.

35. It has not been appreciated that it is well-settled that „once a tenant, is

always a tenant‟, the Appellant had admitted categorically about his

ancestors being a tenant and he has inherited the tenancy as per law of

inheritance. Therefore, it has been wrongly held that the Suit of Plaintiffs

RSA 126/2026 Page 9 of 16

was not barred by Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act and Section 19 Slum

Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act.

36. It is further submitted that Issue Nos.7, 6 and 10 were clubbed and

decided together. Likewise, Issue Nos.1, 2 and 8 were decided together.

Order XX Rule 5 of CPC provides that each Issue must be decided

separately and such clubbing of multiple Issues was a jurisdictional error.

37. Furthermore, damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month have been

given, without there being any evidence. Appellant has filed an Application

under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC before the First Appellant Court to bring

on record the rent receipts issued in the name of Sh. Allah Rakkha

Appellant’s father, but it has been rejected by observing that the Application

was an endeavour to fill the lacuna. It is asserted that it is wrong and the

Application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC should have been allowed.

38. The proposed questions of law as under:

“i. In a case where the rate of rent was Rs.20/-per month

as admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint and also by

defendant admitted the rate of rent @ Rs.25/- per month and

further the same was paid against receipts. In the facts and

circumstances and admission of both the parties was the

suit not barred by Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act,

particularly, in view of Section 3 of Delhi Rent Control Act

which put a clog that the petitioners were the tenant at the

rate of rent below Rs.3500/ in that case the provisions of

DRC will apply.

ii. That the premises in question was admittedly situated

in old Delhi, Ahata Kidara, Delhi-6 which is declared as

Slum area by the Central Government. The question is, was

the suit not barred by Section 19 of Slum Areas (

Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956, as no eviction

RSA 126/2026 Page 10 of 16

petition could be filed against the tenant without permission

of Competent Authority, Slum.

iii. The ld. Trial Court decided issue No.3,6, 7 & 10

together and also issue No.1, 2 and 5 together which were

not inter-related and were based on different subject. The

question arises was the judgment was not vitiated as the ld.

Courts below violated the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5

CPC despite specific ground raised before First Appellate

Court by the appellant.

iv. The courts below have decreed the suit on simple

denial of title of landlord while there is no such law in

Delhi. The question arises, could the civil court pass the

decree of of possession on simple denial of title landlord,

specifically when there was clear cut admission of the

tenant that the father was a tenant @ Rs.25/- per month and

paid rent against receipts.

v. Will the person whose ancestors were admittedly

tenant @ of Rs.25/- per month, will loose protection of Rent

Control Act on denial of title of landlord while there is

admission on behalf of tenant that his ancestors were

tenant.”

39. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgements and Decrees

dated 08.07.2026 and 03.11.2025 be set aside.

Submissions heard and record perused.

40. Plaintiffs / Respondent had set up a case that their predecessor in

interest, Mst. Sahar Bano @ Chaman, wife of Md. Hanif, had purchased the

suit property with a registered Sale Deed dated 27.01.1992 and the Plaintiffs

acquired ownership on her demise, being her Legal Heirs. The testimony of

the Plaintiffs coupled with the registered Sale Deed, established that the

Plaintiffs were the owner of the suit property.

41. Plaintiffs had further stated that it was stated in the registered Sale

RSA 126/2026 Page 11 of 16

Deed itself that Sh. Allah Rakkha was a tenant at the rate of Rs.20/- per

month. Since the Defendant, the successor of Sh. Allah Rakkha, who was

occupying the premises as a tenant, failed to pay the rent, his tenancy was

terminated vide Legal Notice dated 14.02.2007 and thus, possession has

been claimed.

42. The Defendant, in his Written Statement, had admitted that Sh.

Khuda Baksh was a tenant under the erstwhile owners of the suit property,

but denied that either Sh. Allah Rakkha or the Defendant had ever attorned

to Mst. Sahar Bano as the landlord. In his Reply to the Legal Notice dated

07.12.2021, he had also acknowledged the earlier tenancy of Sh. Allah

Rakkha, while disputing the title and landlordship of Mst. Sahar Bano and,

thereafter, of the Plaintiffs. His specific plea, however, was that since none

had come to collect the rent or claim ownership for the last about 60 years,

he had been occupying the suit property in the capacity of an owner.

43. Here Defendant / Appellant had clearly repudiated the ownership of

Mst. Sahar Bano or her successors in interest, i.e. the Plaintiffs. Rather,

specific defence taken by the Defendant / Appellant was that since none

came to collect the rent, he has acquired ownership in the suit property.

44. Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides for

forfeiture of the Lease Agreement. For better understanding, it is reproduced

as under:

“By forfeiture; that is to say,

(1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which

provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-

enter; or

(2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such

RSA 126/2026 Page 12 of 16

by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming

title in himself; or

(3) the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent and the lease

provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening

of such event; and in any of these cases the lessor or his

transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his

intention to determine the lease.”

45. In Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan vs. Municipal Board of Sitapur and

Ors., MANU/SC/0326/1964, while making a reference to the case of

Maharaja of Jeypore vs. Rukmini Pattamahadevi, MANU/PR/0154/1919,

AIR 1919 PC 1, the Apex Court observed that it was clear law that

permanent tenancies are within the rule and are liable to forfeiture, if there

is a disclaimer of tenancy or denial of the landlord’s title. This disclaimer

of repudiation of landlord’s title, must be clear and unequivocal and made to

the knowledge of the landlord. It was further observed that where there is a

disclaimer of tenancy and repudiation of landlord’s title, it would amount to

forfeiture of relationship of landlord and tenant.

46. In Kundan Mal vs. Gurudutta, MANU/SC/0280/1989, JT 1989 (1) SC

147, it was held that the principle of forfeiture on disclaimer is founded on

the rule that a man cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Since

the consequence of applying the rule is very serious, the denial has to be

clear and in unequivocal terms.

47. Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in Majati

Subbarao vs. P.V.K. Krishna Rao (Deceased) by Lrs. AIR 1989 SC 2187,

wherein the principle of forfeiture, as defined in the decision of the Apex

Court in Kundan Mal vs. Gurudutta, JT 1989 (1) SC 147, were fully

endorsed. It was further noted that where there is a provision under the

RSA 126/2026 Page 13 of 16

Rent Act for eviction on the ground of repudiation of the title, then the

remedy with the landlord is only to approach under the Rent Act, as was

the case in Rajasthan Rent Law.

48. In the case of Guru Amarjit Singh vs. Rattan Chand and Ors.,

MANU/SC/0065/1994, AIR 1994 SC 227, the doctrine of forfeiture was

explained to be founded upon the existence of a lease under jural

relationship between a lessor and a lessee, as contemplated under Section

105 TPA. It is implicit that if the lease is in operation, the lessor has been

given a right to determine the lease for committing breach of a covenant or

for disclaimer by the lessee on the happening of any of the events specified

therein. The tenant, by repudiation of the relationship of landlord-

tenant, exposes himself to the risk of forfeiting his lease and giving a

right to the lessor to determine the lease. The repudiation, however, must

be clear and unequivocal and anterior to the issuance of the notice

determining the lease. Where there was an unequivocal admission of the

earlier relationship of landlord-tenant, but denial in the subsequent

litigation, the tenant forfeits its right to lease.

49. In Sheikh Miadhar vs. Rajani Kanta Roy, MANU/WB/0481/1909, 5

Ind. Cas. 708, more light was thrown on this aspect, wherein it was held that

where in a suit for rent the Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s title and claims

to hold under a third party, the Defendant can be, in a Suit for ejectment by

the landlord, debarred from pleading his tenancy and claiming protection

of possession on that ground. It was further observed that this principle

was embodied in Section 111(g) TPA, wherein one of the grounds for

forfeiture, was to set up a title in the third person or in himself.

50. In the present case, while Defendant / Appellant had admitted the

RSA 126/2026 Page 14 of 16

tenancy of his father Sh. Allah Rakkha in the suit property under the

erstwhile owner Mst. Sahar Bano, but he has categorically denied that his

predecessor had ever atoned to Mst. Sahar Bano, when she purchased the

suit property vide registered Sale Deed dated 27.01.1992 and claimed that

since none came to collect the rent, he had been living the suit property

in the capacity of an owner.

51. There are categorical assertions of the Defendant / Appellant, both in

his Written Statement as well as in his Reply to Legal Notice, that he has

been in occupation of the suit property as an owner. Having so asserted

categorically, it is clear that he has repudiated his tenancy and had

asserted ownership. Therefore, lease stood forfeited in terms of Section

111(g) of Transfer of Property Act.

52. Learned Civil Judge has rightly observed that once he had repudiated

his tenancy, he cannot reprobate to revert to the tenancy of his fore-fathers.

The principle, „once a tenant, always a tenant‟ is applicable only in those

cases, where there is an ambiguity about the tenancy.

53. However, Defendant has made clear and unequivocal assertions of

being in occupation of the suit property as owner, he cannot turn back to

seek protection under Delhi Rent Control Act and Slum Areas (Improvement

and Clearance) Act.

54. Herein, learned Civil Judge has held that Defendant having

repudiated his status of tenant, became unauthorised occupant liable for

eviction from the suit property under Civil Law.

55. A hyper technical objection has been taken that there was clubbing of

Issues for deciding them and this was incorrect, in terms of Order XX Rule 5

of CPC. However, those Issues, which were taken up together, were inter-

RSA 126/2026 Page 15 of 16

connected and thus, clubbing of those Issues for decision cannot be terms

to have caused any prejudice to the Appellant or was bad in law.

56. The challenge to the dismissal of the Application under Order XLI

Rule 27 CPC is also without merit. The Appellant sought to place on record

old Rent Receipts issued in the name of his father, Sh. Allah Rakkha, to

establish the earlier tenancy. However, this fact is not in dispute as the

registered Sale Deed dated 27.01.1992 itself records Sh. Allah Rakkha as a

tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.20/-, and the Defendant had also

acknowledged the same in his Written Statement as well as in the Reply to

the Legal Notice.

57. The real controversy concerns the effect of the Appellant’s

subsequent clear and unequivocal assertion that he was occupying the

suit property as an owner, which has already been held to constitute a

repudiation of the tenancy. The Rent Receipts sought to be produced have

no bearing on this subsequent conduct whereby he repudiated the tenancy

and claimed ownership. Thus, even if taken on record, they would not assist

the Appellant in any manner. The learned District Judge, therefore, rightly

dismissed the Application under Order XLI Rule 27 C.

58. The last contention raised by the Appellant is that mesne profits @

Rs.1,000/- per month have been awarded without any basis. However,

learned Civil Judge as well as learned District Judge have rightly

appreciated the evidence of the parties and also the surrounding

circumstances to grant mesne profits @ Rs.1,000/- per month.

59. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that all grounds

raised in the Appeal, are essentially challenge on facts and do not raise

any substantial question of law.

RSA 126/2026 Page 16 of 16

60. There is no merit in present Regular Second Appeal, which is hereby,

dismissed.

61. Pending Applications are also disposed of.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 07, 2026/R