RFA 44/2025 Page 1 of 15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 9

th

April, 2026

Pronounced on: 29

th

May 2026

+ RFA 44/2025 & CM APPL. 3127/2025 (stay)

RENU DAGA

W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Daga

R/o G-17/15, Sector-15, Rohini,

Delhi-110085 .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Prakhar

Bhatnagar, Mr. Arkam Pasha and

Mr. Sourav Tyagi, Advocates

versus

PRADEEP KUMAR

S/o Sh. Brij Kishore

R/o House N. 18, Pocket-9,

Sector-24, Rohini

Delhi-110085 .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh Uppal, Mr. Ritik

Mittal Mr. Lakshay Raj and

Mr. Surender Kr. Sharma, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Appeal under Section 96 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf

of the Appellant against the impugned Judgment dated 23.12.2024, whereby

the learned District Judge has decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent,

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, for Recovery of Possession and Permanent Injunction

RFA 44/2025 Page 2 of 15

and directed the Defendant/Appellant, Renu Daga, to hand over the

possession of the Suit Property, along with arrears of rent in the sum of

Rs.3,70,000/- and also to clear electricity and water charges till the date of

handing over of the possession of the Suit Property.

2. A brief background is that the Plaintiff/Respondent had filed a Civil

Suit bearing C.S. No.77194/2016 for Recovery of Possession, Arrears of

Rent and Permanent Injunction against the Defendant/Appellant. The

Defendant/Renu Daga had filed a Suit No. 400/2017 for Cancellation of title

documents, declaration, specific performance, and permanent injunction. By

a common judgement, Suit of the Appellant/Renu Daga was dismissed,

against which no Appeal has been preferred by her. The Suit of the

Respondent/Plaintiff was decreed against which, the Appellant has preferred

the present Appeal.

3. The facts in brief, as stated in the Plaint by the Plaintiff, Mr. Pradeep

Kumar, are that he is the owner of the Property bearing Flat No. 28, Ground

Floor, Block-F, Pocket-6, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘Suit Property’). The Defendant/Appellant, Ms. Renu Daga, was one

of the previous owner of the Suit Property, from whom the Plaintiff had

purchased the Suit property, through execution of transfer documents in his

favour.

4. Subsequently, on the request of the Defendant, who did not have any

suitable accommodation to reside in, the Suit Property was let out to her on a

monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-, excluding electricity and water charges, vide a

Rent Agreement, by the Plaintiff. The Defendant assured the Plaintiff that

she would vacate the tenanted premises, as soon as she found suitable

alternate accommodation.

RFA 44/2025 Page 3 of 15

5. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant did not pay the rent w.e.f.

August, 2012, despite repeated requests and is a regular defaulter. She also

did not clear the electricity and the water charges and kept demanding more

time. He also required the tenanted premises for his bona fide needs and

accordingly, requested the Defendant to vacate the same. However, the

Defendant failed to do so. Consequently, the Plaintiff served upon the

Defendant a Legal Notice dated 10.05.2014, despite which she failed to

vacate the premises.

6. The Plaintiff, thus, instituted the present Suit seeking recovery of

possession, arrears of rent and permanent injunction restraining the

Defendant from creating any third-party interest in the Suit Property.

7. The Defendant, Ms. Renu Daga, in her Written Statement, took a

preliminary objection that the Plaint did not disclose any valid cause of

action and was based on false and frivolous facts and, therefore, was liable

to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

8. She denied the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship between

the parties and claimed herself to be the absolute owner of the Suit Property.

It was claimed that the documents on the basis of which the Plaintiff was

asserting his title, were false and fabricated, having been manufactured by

the Plaintiff himself, and did not confer any legal right, title or interest upon

the Plaintiff.

9. The Appellant claimed that the Suit Property in fact is not one Flat,

but it consists of two small portions, referred to as Portion ‘A’ and Portion

‘B’ for convenience. The Defendant also filed a Site Plan, in support thereof.

It was claimed that Portion ‘A’ was purchased by the Defendant from Smt.

RFA 44/2025 Page 4 of 15

Kavita wife of Mr. Yogesh Kumar, vide Registered Agreement to Sell dated

25.05.2010.

10. After some time, the Defendant intended to purchase Portion ‘B’ from

its owner, Smt. Shashi Taneja. At the relevant time, the Defendant was

already in occupation and possession of Portion ‘B’ as a tenant, under Smt.

Shashi Taneja. After a series of negotiations, Smt. Shashi Taneja agreed to

execute the sale documents, in favour of the Defendant.

11. The Defendant further asserted that the Plaintiff, Mr. Pradeep, was

engaged in the business of property dealing along with the Defendant’s

brother-in-law (devar). Upon learning about the proposed sale transaction

between the Defendant and Ms. Shashi Taneja, the Plaintiff approached the

Defendant representing that he was a partner of the Defendant’s brother-in-

law in the said business, whereupon the Defendant developed faith and trust

in the Plaintiff.

12. Thereafter, the Plaintiff contacted the husband of the Defendant over

telephone and requested him to inform the Defendant to reach the concerned

Registrar’s Office, while also informing him that all the paperwork had

already been completed by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant reached

the Office of the Registrar on 23.04.2012, where Ms. Shashi Taneja also

arrived, as per the agreed schedule.

13. The Plaintiff assured the Defendant that, being engaged in the

business of property dealing and having good contacts, he would arrange a

witness for the transaction. It was further asserted that the Plaintiff took

advantage of the rush at the Office of the Registrar and asked both, the

Defendant and Ms. Shashi Taneja, to sign the documents already prepared

by him in advance, representing that the said documents pertained to the

RFA 44/2025 Page 5 of 15

Agreement to Sell in respect of Portion ‘B’ to be executed by Ms. Shashi

Taneja. The said documents were signed by the Defendant and Ms. Shashi

Taneja, in good faith.

14. The Plaintiff by using his deep-rooted contacts in the Office of Sub-

Registrar, got the documents registered. The Defendant in good faith and as

a bona fide purchaser, paid the entire sale consideration to Ms. Shashi

Taneja.

15. After some time, in the month of May, 2014, the Defendant received

a Legal Notice dated 23.05.2014 from the Plaintiff claiming rent in respect

of the aforesaid Portions from the Defendant by asserting himself to be the

owner thereof. The said Notice also described the aforesaid Portions marked

‘A’ and ‘B’ as Flat No. 28, Sector-16, Rohini. The Plaintiff also claimed a

sum of Rs.2,10,000/-, despite having no locus, right, title or interest in the

Suit Property.

16. It was thereafter, that the Defendant came to know that the Plaintiff

had obtained the signatures of the Defendant as well as Ms. Shashi Taneja

on the documents, by misrepresenting that the documents pertained to the

Agreement to Sell, being executed by Ms. Shashi Taneja in favour of the

Defendant.

17. On merits, the Appellant/Defendant denied that she was the previous

owner of the Suit Property or that she sold it to the Plaintiff. It was asserted

that the bare perusal of the documents, reflect that they were prepared in

haste, with an ulterior motive to usurp the Suit Property of the Defendant.

18. To establish the falsity of the Documents, the Appellant referred to

the Will dated 23.04.2012, allegedly executed by Ms. Shashi Taneja, in

favour of the Plaintiff. The Will bears the signatures of answering Defendant

RFA 44/2025 Page 6 of 15

at first place and that of Ms. Shashi Taneja at the second place, even though

she was never a party to the said document nor her name appeared on the

same and her signartures. The co-signatures of the Appellant on the Will,

supports her assertion that she had signed all the documents, in good faith. It

can be easily proved that the Plaintiff had got the signatures of the

Defendant, as well as Ms. Shashi Taneja, by playing a fraud.

19. The Defendant denied that she had taken the Suit Premises on rent for

a sum of Rs.10,000/-, excluding water and electricity charges or that a Rent

Agreement was executed between the parties. The Defendant claimed that

the she is the owner of the Suit Property.

20. All the averments made in the Plaint, were denied and it was stated

that the Suit is liable to be dismissed.

21. The Plaintiff in the Replication, reaffirmed his assertions and denied

the averments made by the DefendantNo.1 , in her Written Statement.

22. The Issues were framed on 12.02.2016, which is as under:-

(i) Whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action?

OPD.

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has cheated the defendant and the

co-owner namely Smt. Shashi Taneja by preparing forged

and fabricated documents in respect of the impugned

property? OPD.

(iii) Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant

between the parties? OPD.

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of

possession in respect of the impugned property, as prayed?

OPP.

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of

permanent injunction qua the impugned property, as

prayed? OPP.

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears

of rent in the sum of Rs.3,70,000/- till date along with

RFA 44/2025 Page 7 of 15

electricity and water charges as per actual bill, as prayed?

OPP

(vii) Relief.

23. The Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and proved the documents,

Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/6A.

24. The Plaintiff also examined PW-2, Mr. Yogender Singh, Date Entry

Operator from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Rohini, Delhi, who proved the

certified copy of Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney, both

dated 23.04.2012 as Ex.PW-2/1 and Ex.PW-2/2.

25. PW-3, Mr. Shyam Pahwa deposed that he was a witness to the

execution of the Rent Agreement, Ex.PW-3/1, which was attested at the

Office of Mr. Beniwal, Notary Public, Pitampura, Delhi.

26. The Defendant No.1/Appellant, Ms. Renu Daga examined herself as

DW-1 and proved the Site Plan, Ex.DW-1/1. She also tendered the

Agreement to Sell and other transfer documents as Mark-A. The electricity

bills, photographs, invoices and the Reply to the Notice of the Plaintiff, are

Ex.DW-1/3 to Ex.DW-1/6.

27. The learned District Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence,

observed that the Defendant had not denied her signatures on the transfer

documents, Ex.PW1/3 (colly), executed in favour of the Plaintiff, or on the

Rent Agreement, Mark-C. The only defence raised by the Defendant was

that the Plaintiff had obtained her signatures on the said documents, by

misrepresentation. However, the Defendant failed to adduce any substantive

evidence, to disprove the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff.

28. Once she had admitted the signatures and also that she had gone to the

Office of the Sub-Registrar and executed the sale documents, mere plea of

RFA 44/2025 Page 8 of 15

fraud or misrepresentation without any cogent evidence, was not sufficient

to disregard the documents. It was thus, held that the documents of title

dated 23.04.2012 as Ex.PW-2/1 and Ex.PW-2/2, stood duly proved by the

Plaintiff.

29. It was further held that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship

stood duly proved from the evidence led by the parties as well as from the

Rent Agreement Mark-C, which had been duly executed. Accordingly, the

Defendant/Appellant was held to be a tenant in the Suit Premises.

30. Consequently, the Plaintiff was held entitled to recovery of

possession as well as arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3,70,000/-. The

Defendant/Appellant was further directed to pay the water and electricity

charges till handing over possession of the Suit Premises to the Plaintiff.

31. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present First Appeal has been

preferred.

32. The grounds of challenge are that the Suit instituted by the

Plaintiff/Respondent was a result of clever drafting, inasmuch as the plaintiff

ought to have sought the relief of Specific Performance of the registered

Agreement to Sell. However, the Plaintiff merely instituted a Suit for

Possession without seeking the relief of Specific Performance of the

Agreement to Sell. According to the Appellant, this course was adopted

because a Suit for Specific Performance was hopelessly barred by limitation.

33. It has further been contended that the net effect of the impugned

Judgment is that the Plaintiff, despite not having a valid Sale Deed, would

continue to enjoy the Suit Property after dispossessing the Appellant, who

has allegedly been in possession thereof since 2007.

RFA 44/2025 Page 9 of 15

34. The Appellant further contended that even if the Agreement to Sell

and allied documents were registered, the same did not create any right, title

or interest in the Suit Property in favour of the Plaintiff. It was stated that the

learned District Judge had virtually dispensed with the requirement of a

registered Sale Deed, in the absence of which no relief could have been

granted to the Plaintiff.

35. Furthermore, undue reliance had been placed upon the registered

Agreement to Sell while completely overlooking the settled principles of

law that such documents do not override the statutory requirement of a

registered Sale Deed so as to confer title in the Suit Property. It was thus

contended that the Plaintiff could not have maintained the Suit against the

Appellant.

36. The Appellant further argued that the Plaintiff sought to evict the

Appellant by treating her as a tenant at sufferance. According to the

Appellant, the Suit, if at all maintainable, could only have been instituted by

the true owner or landlord, or through an Attorney Holder on behalf of such

owner, and not by the Plaintiff in his individual capacity. Reliance was

placed upon Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Haryana & Anr.,

183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC), wherein it was held that documents such as an

Agreement to Sell etc., do not constitute documents of title or ownership.

37. The Appellant in her Reply to the Legal Notice sent by the Plaintiff,

had clearly stated that the Arrears of Rent and the Agreement to Sell came

into being as a result of misrepresentation and fraud. The Plaintiff is not the

exclusive owner of the Property and could not have maintained the present

Suit.

RFA 44/2025 Page 10 of 15

38. Accordingly, a prayer is made that the impugned Judgment dated

23.12.2024 be set-aside.

Submissions heard and the record perused.

39. The principal controversy in the present Appeal pertains to the nature

of the Suit Property, the validity and effect of the documents dated

23.04.2012 executed in favour of the Respondent, and the existence of a

landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.

40. The first challenge raised by the Appellant is that the Suit Property

bearing No. 28, Ground Floor, Block-F, Pocket-6, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi,

did not comprise one composite flat, but in fact consisted of two separate

portions, i.e., Portion ‘A’ and Portion ‘B’.

41. The Appellant claimed that she had purchased Portion ‘A’ from one

Smt. Kavita, wife of Mr. Yogesh Kumar, vide a Registered Agreement to

Sell dated 25.05.2010 and was running her shop/business therefrom. The

Appellant further admitted that Portion ‘B’, was owned by Smt. Shashi

Taneja and that she intended to purchase it from her.

42. A bare perusal of the site plan Ex.DW1/1 shows that the Suit Property

is one flat, though different portions of the same, namely, Portion ‘A’ and

Portion ‘B’, were being used for running separate shops/businesses. Merely

because separate shops were being run from different portions, does not

mean that they were two separate properties. The Suit Property, therefore, is

one flat.

43. Furthermore, the Appellant, Renu Daga has admitted that Smt. Shashi

Taneja was the owner of the other Portion ‘B’, from whom the Appellant

intended to purchase the second portion. She deposed that she had entered

into an understanding with Shashi Taneja for purchase of the said portion

RFA 44/2025 Page 11 of 15

and that the Respondent, Pradeep Kumar, who was engaged in the business

of property dealing and was known to her through her brother in law

(devar), came to know about the transaction and offered to facilitate the

execution of the sale documents.

44. The Appellant has further admitted that she, along with Shashi

Taneja, went to the Office of the Sub-Registrar on 23.04.2012, where the

documents dated 23.04.2012 Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6 were executed in the

presence of the Respondent, Pradeep Kumar. The Appellant has admitted

that the aforesaid documents were duly registered.

45. Her principal defence, however, is that she had signed the documents

in good faith, without reading their contents and subsequently discovered

that the Plaintiff, Pradeep Kumar had got the Agreement to Sell, etc.,

executed by Shashi Taneja in favour of himself, instead of her.

46. It is wholly untenable that the Appellant signed the Agreement to Sell

and allied documents, without being aware that they pertained to the sale

transaction in favour of Pradeep Kumar and not in her favour. The Appellant

has admittedly affixed her signatures/thumb impressions on the said

documents. She has further admitted that the documents bear her

photographs and that the same were signed by her, before the Office of the

Sub-Registrar.

47. Pertinently, she claimed that she paid the entire Sale consideration to

Shashi Taneja. However, she has failed to give any details of the amount

paid or adduce any cogent evidence to disclose the source of money,

allegedly paid by her. No person of ordinary prudence, would hand over the

money, without assuring the correctness of the documents.

RFA 44/2025 Page 12 of 15

48. The learned District Judge, thus, rightly observed that once the

Appellant had admittedly appeared before the Office of the Sub-Registrar

and had executed all these documents which admittedly bears her signatures,

photographs and thumb impressions, a bald plea of fraud or

misrepresentation unsupported by any cogent evidence, could not invalidate

the registered documents.

49. The testimony of the Appellant was insufficient to dislodge the

documentary evidence duly proved on record, particularly when the

execution of the documents stood admitted by her. It is, therefore,

established that Smt. Shashi Taneja, who was admittedly the owner of

Portion ‘B’ of the Suit Property, had executed the documents dated

23.04.2012 in favour of Pradeep Kumar. The plea of fraud and

misrepresentation raised by Renu Daga thus remains wholly unsubstantiated.

50. The Agreement to Sell and allied documents Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6

pertained to the entire Suit Property/Flat and not to two separate and

independent properties i.e. Portion ‘A’ and Portion ‘B’, as sought to be

projected by the Appellant. The admissions of the Appellant coupled with

the duly admitted documents, clearly established the superior rights of the

Respondent vis-à-vis the Appellant.

51. The second contention of the Appellant that the Respondent ought to

have filed a Suit for Specific Performance, is equally misconceived. The

case of the Respondent was not founded upon an executory contract

requiring enforcement, but upon documents already executed in his favour

coupled with a contemporaneous Rent Agreement, under which the

Appellant continued in possession as a tenant. The present Suit was

RFA 44/2025 Page 13 of 15

therefore, essentially founded upon recovery of possession from a tenant and

recovery of arrears of rent and was maintainable in its present form.

52. The Respondent was, therefore, not required to seek the relief of

Specific Performance, since the present Suit was founded upon the landlord-

tenant relationship between the parties and recovery of possession from the

Appellant as a tenant.

53. Much emphasis has been laid by the Appellant on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), to contend

that the Agreement to Sell and allied documents, did not confer ownership

upon the Respondent/Plaintiff. There can be no dispute with the settled

proposition that such documents by themselves do not constitute a

conveyance of title in the strict legal sense. However, vis-a-vis the

Appellant, the said documents sufficiently establish the superior rights of the

Respondent. The Appellant/Defendant herself admitted that Portion 'B' was

owned by Smt. Shashi Taneja and that she was occupying the said portion as

a tenant under her. The Plaintiff/Respondent, on the basis of Agreement to

Sell, GPA, etc. Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6, stepped into the shoes of Shashi

Taneja and became the Landlord in respect of Suit premises.

54. It is also pertinent to note that there was a Rent Agreement dated

23.04.2012 Mark-C, on which the Appellant has admitted her signatures.

Though the Appellant has asserted that she had signed all the documents on

23.04.2012, without being aware of their contents, the testimony of the

Plaintiff/Respondent coupled with the admitted signatures of the Appellant

on the Rent Agreement, clearly establishes that the Appellant had been

inducted as a tenant in the Suit Premises on 23.04.2012 at a monthly rent of

Rs.10,000/-.

RFA 44/2025 Page 14 of 15

55. That being so, once it stood established that the Appellant had been

inducted as a tenant in the Suit Premises by Pradeep Kumar, she could not

subsequently dispute the entitlement of the Respondent to seek possession of

the Suit Premises from her. Once the landlord-tenant relationship stood

established, the Appellant was estopped under Section 116 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 from disputing the title of the Respondent at the

commencement of tenancy. Even assuming that the Respondent may not

have been the absolute owner by virtue of the Agreement to Sell, GPA and

allied documents, the Appellant, having been inducted and continuing in

possession as a tenant under the Respondent, could not deny his entitlement

as Landlord, to seek possession from her.

56. The learned District Judge has thus, rightly concluded that the

Appellant had been inducted as a tenant in the Suit Premises at a monthly

rent of Rs.10,000/-.

57. The learned District Judge also rightly rejected the defence of the

Appellant that the documents had been signed by her, without knowledge of

their contents or under misrepresentation. The evidence on record further

established that the Appellant had been in arrears of rent from August, 2012

till 2015, at the agreed monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-.

58. The Respondent was, therefore, rightly held entitled to recovery

of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3,70,000/-.

Conclusion:

59. The Suit for Possession and recovery of arrears of rent, has been

rightly decreed against the Appellant.

RFA 44/2025 Page 15 of 15

60. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

MAY 29, 2026

RS/N