RSA 34/2026 Page 1 of 30

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 08

th

July, 2026

Pronounced on: 02

nd

September, 2026

# CNR No. : DLHC010051842026

+ RSA 34/2026, CM APPL. 9846-9847/2026

SH. AJAY KUMAR VYAS

S/o Late Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri

R/o 19/54-B, First Floor, Tilak Nagar,

New Delhi. .....Appellant

Through: Appearance not given.

versus

1. SHREE SANATAN DHARAM SABHA, (REGD.)

(Regn. No.1214) Under the Societies

Registration Act 1860

Through its President/Secretary

Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.

2. SH. SURESH MALIK

S/o Sh. Ram Chander

R/o C-3/94, Janakpuri,

New Delhi-110058.

(Chairman of Sanatan Dharam Sabha, (Regd.)

Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.

3. SH. GULSHAN MAKEN

S/o Late Sh. Man Mohan Maken

R/o C/o Shop No.12

New Tilak Nagar, Market, Tilak Nagar,

New Delhi-110018.

(President of Sanatan Dharam Sabha, (Regd.)

Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.

4. SH. KAMAL SHARMA

S/o Sh. Dev Raj Dogra

R/o 16/16-A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.

RSA 34/2026 Page 2 of 30

(Gen. Sec. of Sanatan Dharam Sabha, (Regd.)

Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.

5. SH. SITARAM SOI

R/o WZ-73, Gali No.6, Krishna Puri,

New Delhi-110018.

(Treasurer of Sanatan Dharam Sabha, (Regd.)

Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.

6. SH. LOKNATH LUTHRA

S/o Late Sh. J.N. Luthra,

R/o 10/7, Ashok Nagar,

New Dlehi-110018.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan and Ms. Simran

Rao, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Section 151 CPC

has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants against the Judgment

dated 03.11.2025 whereby the learned District Judge, Delhi, in the Regular

First Appeal No.61231/2016, has affirmed the Judgment and Decree dated

22.09.2016 of ld. Civil Judge dismissing the Suit No. CS/611637/2016 of

the Plaintiff/Appellant, for Possession and Mandatory Injunction and

Recovery of Compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Cancellation of Rent Deed

and NOC and Injunction against creating third party rights, in the suit

property.

2. The facts in brief are that Late Shri Devi Nandan Shastri was

associated with renovation of Sanathan Dharam Mandir situated at Late Shri

RSA 34/2026 Page 3 of 30

Devki Nandan Shastri Marg, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and Sanatan Dharam

Shopping Complex, which was developed in early 1970‟s and completed in

or about 1974. He was the President of Defendant No.1 Shri Sanatan

Dharam Sabha, during his lifetime having been elected as a Member of the

Sabha. The members of the Sabha and devotees of the area, had installed a

statue of Late Shri Devki Nandan Shastri in the Mandir Complex, as an

expression of their gratitude to the departed soul. Moreover, in recognition

of his contribution in the construction/renovation of the Mandir and the

development of the area and society, the road was named as “Shri Devki

Nandan Shastri Marg”.

3. The Plaintiff Ajay Kumar Vyas, son of Late Shri Devki Nandan

Shastri stated that the area was hardly habituated, in those days. It was

agreed that in order to earn more revenue, some shops may also be

constructed around the Mandir and one corner space was given to Shri

Devki Nandan Shastri, who later on constructed a shop from his own pocket.

It was later numbered as B-21 and Shri Devki Nandan Shastri was accepted

as a tenant in the shop.

4. He started paying rent to Sanatan Dharam Sabha,/Defendant No.1 and

his elder son Sh. Vijay Shastri started his business under the name and style

of „Vijay Corner’ and also „Vijay Flour Mill’ from the said shop, which had

been in the possession of Shri Devi Nandan Shastri and their family since

1974.

5. With passage of time, this shop was subdivided into four portions

privately marked as A, B, C and D. Later, with the concurrence of

Defendant No.1, Portion marked as private No.A and B were occupied by

other tenants of Defendant No.1 and Shri Devki Nandan Shastri and his

RSA 34/2026 Page 4 of 30

family surrendered their tenancy rights in respect of these two Portions,

while they retained Portions C and D of the shop.

6. On the demise of Shri Devki Nandan Shastri, his wife Smt. Raj Dulari

was accepted as a tenant in Portion C and D of shop No.B-21 and rent

receipts for different periods in her name, were annexed along with the

Plaint. The Plaintiff asserted that Smt. Raj Dulari continued to pay the rent

in respect of these two Portion @ Rs.15/- per month to Defendant No.1,

which stands paid upto March, 2010 by Shri Devki Nandan Shastri and

thereafter, by Smt. Raj Dulari, who used to pay the rent in advance.

7. On the demise of Smt. Raj Dulari on 27.02.2007, her legal heir

succeeded to the tenancy rights. During her lifetime, Smt. Raj Dulari had

permitted the legal heirs of her elder son Late Shri Vijay Kumar Shastri, to

carry on business activities from portion C of the suit shop, while Portion D

was retained by her from where she was running a Dhaba. For this purpose,

she had made an arrangement with Defendant No.6 Shri Lok Nath Luthra,

who was permitted as a Licensee to look after the day-to-day affairs of the

Dhaba and to share the income with Smt. Raj Dulari, as per the

arrangement between them.

8. Smt. Raj Dulari by virtue of a Will dt. 30.11.2002, bequeathed the

tenancy rights and the business, in favour of the Plaintiff. It was mutually

agreed amongst the family that the legal heirs of Late Shri Vijay Kumar

Shastri, elder brother of the Plaintiff would continue to carry on their

business activities in Portion C, while Portion D would fall to the share of

the Plaintiff. A Representation on the basis of Will of Smt. Raj Dulari, was

sent to Defendant No.1, by the Plaintiff and a request was made to issue the

RSA 34/2026 Page 5 of 30

rent receipts in the name of Plaintiff. However, Defendants No.1 to 5 did

not pay any heed to the Representation of the Plaintiff, for a long time.

9. The Plaintiff intended to wind up the Dhaba business running from

Portion D of the shop and intimated Defendant No.6 accordingly, who

expressed his readiness to close the Dhaba, but requested for some time to

make alternate arrangement. However, on account of other pre-occupation

and on the request of Defendant No.6, Plaintiff did not take any action

immediately for the closing of Dhaba and merely intimated him that he may

continue for some more time,while rendering the accounts and making

payments, as he was doing during the lifetime of Smt. Raj Dulari i.e. pay

40% of the profits of the business, which came to an average of Rs.3500/- to

Rs.4,000/- per month to his share.

10. In or around the third week of July, 2009, the Plaintiff noticed a new

electricity meter installed in Portion D of Shop No.B-21. Since the supply to

all the Portions of B-21 from beginning, was through one meter and there

was no separate meter for the different Portions of the shop B-21, the

Plaintiff made enquiries from Defendant No.6 who was unable to give any

satisfactory reply, except that the electricity meter had been installed by him

with the permission of Defendant No.2.

11. Consequently, on getting suspicious of the motive, Plaintiff made

further enquiries and found that Defendant No.2 who was representing

himself to be the Chairman of Defendant No.1 Sabha, had evidently issued a

“No Objection Certificate”on behalf of Defendant No.1, falsely stating that

Defendant No.6 was the tenant under Defendant No.1 and had No Objection

to the installation of the electricity meter by the concerned Authority.

RSA 34/2026 Page 6 of 30

12. On further enquiry, the Plaintiff came to know that rent receipt dated

20.04.2009 had also been mischievously issued in favour of Defendant No.6

by the official of Defendant No.1, under the signatures of Defendant No.5

Shri Sitaram Soi.

13. The Plaintiff claimed that there was no such post as Chairman of

Sanatan Dharam Sabha, to the knowledge of the Plaintiff and his father was

the President, during his lifetime. He intended to know how and from where

this new post of Chairman came up. When he received no satisfactory reply

from the Defendants as to how and when the post of Chairman of Defendant

No.1 came into existence, he applied to Registrar of Societies under RTI

Act, to enquire if any amendment and addition to the post of President as is

usually the case in Societies, has been made and whether any other post

designated as Chairman, has been created and whether it was sanctioned

and approved by Registrar of Societies, and if so, under what rules of law

were such post created.

14. The Plaintiff further came to know from these enquiries that

Defendant No.2 is a usurper and a person of dubious character in the locality

and in collusion and conspiracy with office bearers without any sanction of

law, started representing himself as a Chairman. The Defendants No.3, 4 and

5 on confrontation were not able to give any explanation in regard to the

new illegal post of Chairman except that the people wanted another post of

Chairman, because he was an influential person in the locality.

15. Defendant No.2 after taking huge amounts of Pagdi from Defendant

No.6, had wrongfully and illegally issued a No Objection Certificate,

ostensibly accepting Defendant No.6 as a tenant.The Plaintiff claimed that it

appears that President/ Defendant No.3, General Secretary/ Defendant No.4

RSA 34/2026 Page 7 of 30

and Treasurer/ Defendant No.5 were hand in glove with Defendant No.2 and

6. It is also claimed that the huge Pagdi was obviously shared amongst

Defendants No.3 to 5.

16. The Treasurer had issued a Rent Receipt in favour of Defendant No.6

for Rs.1,000/- for the month of May and June, 2009 @ Rs.500/- per month.

On the basis of this illegal and mischievous Receipt, it was represented to

the electricity supplying Authority that Defendant No.6 was a tenant in

respect of Shop No.B-21 and was successful in getting an independent

electricity connection.

17. It is claimed that such act of the Defendants tantamount to illegal

dispossession of the Plaintiff from the suit premises, at the instance of the

landlord/ Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff informed the Defendants about

taking a legal action both Civil and Criminal against the Office Bearers and

Defendant No.6.

18. The Plaintiff being a successive tenant in Portion C and D of Shop B-

21, claimed collusion between the Defendants to act contrary to the rights of

the Plaintiff and to rob him of his valuable tenancy rights in the suit shop,

both under Section 6 Specific Relief Act and also on the basis of his title as

lawful tenant of the premises.

19. The Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant No.6 has been avoiding

to pay the share of profit from the business of running Dhaba, ever since the

death of Smt. Raj Dulari in February, 2007 and is liable to render the

accounts for the period up to July, 2009 when the Plaintiff discovered

wrongful dispossession from the shop by Defendant No.6 in collusion with

other Defendants. The Plaintiff claimed damages @ Rs.5,000/- per month

for the period of July-August, 2009 for use and occupation of the suit

RSA 34/2026 Page 8 of 30

property. He also claimed Damages, Mesne Profits, Compensation from the

Defendant No.6 @ Rs.5,000/- per month till the realization of the Suit

property.

20. Therefore, the Plaintiff, filed a Suit for Recovery of Possession,

Declaration of Rent Receipts issued in favour of Defendant No.6 as null and

void; for Rendition of Accounts by Defendant No. 6 around February, 2007

till July, 2009; User and Occupation Charges @ Rs.5,000/- per month and

for restraining the Defendants from creating third party rights in the Suit

property.

21. The Defendants No.1 to 5 in their Written Statement, asserted that

the Suit was liable to be dismissed as it was not supported with an Affidavit,

as per Section 26 CPC. No proper Court Fee has been paid on the value of

the subject matter of the Suit,for the purpose of jurisdiction. Moreover, there

are no specific averments in the Plaint,in regard to Court Fee. The Plaintiff

has valued the relief of Possession at Rs.180/- i.e. aggregate of one year rent

while as per Section 7 (XI) Court Fees Act, one year rent is to be calculated

only in respect of the Suit filed by the landlord against the tenant. However,

in the present case, the Plaintiff does not accept the Defendant No.6 as his

tenant and the Court Fee has to be paid on the value of the property.

22. Furthermore, the Plaintiff had relied upon a Will dated 05.09.2000

executed in his favour by his mother, while no Probate Certificate has been

filed by the Plaintiff, in support thereof establishing that the Will is a forged

document.

23. On merits, all the averments made in the Plaint are denied. It was

denied that one corner shop bearing B-21 had been given to Shri Devki

RSA 34/2026 Page 9 of 30

Nandan Shastri, which was later constructed by him from his own pocket or

that it was divided into four portions.

24. It is further denied that Portion C and D were retained by Shri Devki

Nandan Shastri or that he has continued to occupy them as a tenant or that

after his demise, the tenancy rights devolved on his wife Smt. Raj Dulari and

thereafter, on the Plaintiff.

25. It was denied that the Rent Receipts dated 20.04.2009 were false or

had been issued mischievously in favour of Defendant No. 6 by Defendant

No. 1 under the signatures of Defendant No. 5. It was stated that Defendant

No. 6 got a separate electricity meter installed, because earlier the meter

which was used jointly was disconnected by the supplying Authority.

26. It was further explained that on the main Notice/ Display Board in the

Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, all the names and posts of the

members of the Sabha were clearly mentioned with the consent of Members

of Defendant No.1 and it is with the consent of the members of Defendant

No. 1 that Defendant No. 2 is holding the post of Chairman.

27. It is further explained that Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri, during his

lifetime, had surrendered his tenancy rights in favour of Defendant No.6 and

it was never objected to by his wife. In fact, Smt. Raj Dulari mother of the

Plaintiff, had approached Defendant No.1 for transfer/ completing the

formality for releasing the suit shop in favour of Defendant No.6, as per the

wish of her husband and then it came to the knowledge of Defendant No.1

about the creation of tenancy rights in favour of Defendant No.6.

28. Defendants No.1 to 5denied that a huge Pagdi amount was taken from

Defendant No.6 and shared amongst the other Defendants. It is asserted that

Defendant No.5 as Treasurer of the Sabha, had issued the Rent Receipt in

RSA 34/2026 Page 10 of 30

favour of Defendant No.6 for Rs.1,000/- @ Rs.500/- for the month of May

and June, 2009. It was denied that there was any misrepresentation of

Defendant No.6 as a tenant, in the electricity supplying Authority to get a

separate meter installed in B-21- D.

29. Further, it is asserted that the Plaintiff has no right over the Suit

property, for the reasons explained herein above. It was denied that any

illegal act of dispossession of the Plaintiff from the suit property has been

committed. In fact, the tenancy rights were surrendered by the Sh. Devki

Nandan Shastri during his lifetime, in the year 1977.

30. It is further explained that the post of Chairman, had been created vide

Resolution and the same was duly intimated to the Registrar of Societies. It

was thus, submitted that the Suit of the Plaintiff was liable to be dismissed.

31. The Defendant No.6 submitted his Written Statement, wherein he

had taken similar preliminary objections, as taken by Defendant Nos.1 to 5

in their Written Statements, in regard to Court Fee and maintainability of the

Suit.

32. It was further asserted that Defendant No.6 has been in exclusive

possession of the suit property, which had been handed over to him by Sh.

Devki Nandan Shastri, Plaintiff‟s father, thereby surrendering their tenancy

rights in respect of the suit property in the year 1976 and since then,

Defendant No.6 has been solely running the business from premises, without

any interference or hindrance from the Plaintiff‟s mother.

33. Defendant No. 6 claimed that Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri had

surrendered his tenancy, in favour of Defendant No.6 in the year 1977, a fact

which has been acknowledged by children of Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri and

RSA 34/2026 Page 11 of 30

Smt. Raj Dulari, for which reason they have never interfered with the

peaceful possession of Defendant No.6.

34. It was denied that by succession,on the demise of Sh. Devki Nandan

Shastri, his wife Smt. Raj Dulari, was accepted as a tenant of Shop No.B-21,

Portions C & D. The rent receipts were annexed in regard to the Portion

occupied by the brother of the Plaintiff, i.e. Portion C of Shop No.21. It was

specifically denied that Smt. Raj Dulari continued to pay rent at the rate of

Rs.15/- per month for Portions 21/C & 21/D, to Defendant No.1. It was

claimed that she was paying rent only in respect of one Portion C, which

was in their possession.

35. It was further denied that the rent receipt dated 20.04.2009 was false

and mischievously issued in favour of Defendant No.1 by the officials of

Defendant No.3 under the signature of Defendant No.5. It was further

denied that there was no post of Chairman in Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Tilak

Nagar, Delhi to the knowledge of the Plaintiff. It was claimed that the names

and posts of all the members of the Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Tilak Nagar,

Delhi, are clearly written in its main Notice Board.

36. It was denied that portion D of the Shop, was retained by Smt. Raj

Dulari or she was running a Dhaba therein, for her benefit. The alleged

arrangement with Defendant No.6 as a licensee to look after the day to day

affairs of the Dhaba and to share the income with Smt. Raj Dulari, was

specifically denied. It was submitted that no such arrangement was ever

entered into between Smt. Raj Dulari and Defendant No.6 or that the profits

were to be shared in the ratio of 40-60, between them.

37. It was further denied that Defendant No.6 agreed to close down the

Dhaba on the request of Smt. Raj Dulari or that he sought some time to

RSA 34/2026 Page 12 of 30

make an alternate arrangement. It was asserted that Plaintiff or his mother,

had not given any Notice regarding closing the business of Dhaba and the

entire pleadings to this effect, are false and imaginary.

38. It was claimed that Smt. Raj Dulari had approached Defendant No.1

for completion of formalities for release of suit property in her favour, as per

the wish of her husband. Defendant No.1 also took note of it and requested

her to approach on some other day due to his busy schedule, but thereafter,

Plaintiff's mother did not turn up. Defendant No.6, being a lawful tenant in

the suit property, had agreed to install the Electricity Meter, to which

Defendant No.1 had no objection.

39. It was further denied that Defendant No.2 had taken huge amounts of

pagri from Defendant No.6, wrongfully and illegally issued a No Objection

Certificate, ostensibly accepting Defendant No.6 as tenant. It was reiterated

that he had lawful tenancy rights after Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri surrendered

the same in his favour.

40. All the other averments made in the Plaint were denied and it was

asserted that the Suit of the Plaintiff was liable to be dismissed.

41. Plaintiff in the Replication to the respective Written Statements,

reaffirmed the assertions made in the Plaint and denied the contentions

raised therein.

42. The Issues on the pleadings, were framed on 21.03.2011, as under:

“1. Whether appropriate court fees has been affixed or

not? OPD

2. Whether the suit has not been properly valued?

OPD

RSA 34/2026 Page 13 of 30

3. Whether the suit is barred by period of limitation?

OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of

possession as prayed for? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of

declaration as prayed for? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for

rendition of accounts? OPP

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mesne

profits/damages as prayed for, if yes, at what rater and

for which period? OPP

8. Relief.”

43. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 were proceeded ex-parte on 13.03.2013.

44. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by

way of Affidavit. He proved the documents, i.e. Death Certificate of Sh.

Devki Nandan Shastri, photocopy of the rent receipts and other documents

as Ex.PW-1/1 to 1/27 and other documents were Marked from „A‟ to „E‟.

45. PW-2ASI Sh. Surender Kumar, Office of Commissioner of Police,

Delhi Police Headquarters (PHQ) produced the Register in regard to

Complaint dated 13.05.2011 and stated that there was no Complaint was

lodged by Shri Ajay Kumar Vyas, on the said date.

46. PW-3 was Shri Mokhtar Mehto, Record Keeper, the Office of

Sub-Register-II, Basai Darapur, brought the record pertaining to

registered Will dated 30.11.2002 Ex.PW-1/19.

47. PW-4 Sh. Raj Bahadur, Grade-II Inspector from Commissioner

of Industry (Firm and Society), 419 Patpar Ganj Industrial Area, Delhi

RSA 34/2026 Page 14 of 30

produced the Summoned record pertaining to Letter dated 02.09.2009 and

18.09.2009 Ex.PW-1/21 and Ex.PW-1/22.

48. PW-5 Sh. O. P. Jhingan, Advocate, deposed that Will Ex.PW-1/19

was drafted by him and it bears his signatures and also Smt. Raj Dulari had

signed the Will, in his presence.

49. PW-6 Constable Sh. Kulwant Singh, Tilak Nagar, West District,

New Delhi, produced the Letter dated 14.12.2011, DD No.33B, P.S. Tilak

Nagar and Complaint Dated 08.12.2011, P.S.: Tilak Nagar, which were

already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/26 and Ex.PW-1/27.

50. PW-7 Sh. Kcwal Sharma, Supervisor from Shri Sanatan Dharam

Sabha (Regd.), Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, produced the Record of rent of

the Sabha from April, 2009. The Documents were exhibited as Ex.PW-7/1

to 7/15.

51. Defendant No.6 examined himself as DW-6 (sic) and deposed on

similar lines as his Written Statement by way of Affidavit, Ex.DW-6/X.

Documents proved by him in support of his defence are Ex.DW-6/1 to 6/27.

52. DW-7 Sh. Affak Ahmad, Record Keeper, Sub-Registrar-IIB,

Janakpuri, New Delhi, (sic) deposed that Summoned Record was not

traceable and Letter to this effect is Ex.DW-7/1.

53. DW-8 Sh. Vinod Kumar, UDA from A&C Department, Ashok

Nagar, Tilak Nagar, MCD, also deposed that summoned Record was not

traceable and had no knowledge of the document already Ex.DW-6/14.

54. DW-9 Ravinder Pratap Singh,(sic) deposed that he knew Defendant

No.6 for the last 35 years, as Defendant No.6 is running a tea stall since

1980, in Shop No.21.

RSA 34/2026 Page 15 of 30

55. Learned Civil Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, held that rent

receipts Ex.PW-1/4, PW-1/5 and PW-1/9 to PW-1/15 had not been issued

regularly for a continuous period. Also, the rent receipts were issued in the

name of Smt. Raj Dulari and not in the name of Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri,

but it was nowhere indicated that those rent receipts pertained to Portion

21/D and thus, it could not be held that she had been paying the rent in

respect of the suit Shop.

56. It was further held that there was no documents produced to show that

Smt. Raj Dulari had been running the Dhaba or that Defendant No.6 was

inducted as licensee by her. It was further observed that Plaintiff had relied

upon Will Ex.PW-1/19 and had examined PW-3 and PW-5 to prove the

Will, whereby Plaintiff asserted that he had been bequeathed Portions 21/C

and 21/D of the suit shop No.21.

57. However, it was held that transfer of tenancy by tenant through

testamentary disposition, is not a valid transfer and tenancy rights could not

have been transferred. The MCD Challans Ex.DW-6/14 to 6/16 and Receipts

Ex.DW-6/14 and 6/15 were all in the name of Defendant No.6, which again

corroborated that he has been in possession since long.

58. It was further held that the Plaintiff, in his entire Affidavit of

Evidence, had not stated that he ever came in possession of the suit property

or that he ever paid rent to Defendant No.1, in respect to the suit property. In

regard to the assertion of the Plaintiff that Defendant No.2 was falsely

claiming himself to be the Chairman of Defendant No.1 and had wrongly

issued No Objection Certificate for installation of Electricity Meter in the

name of Defendant No.6, it was held that the documents Ex.PW-7/6 and

RSA 34/2026 Page 16 of 30

Ex.PW-7/7 were addressed to Sh. Suresh Malik, Chairman of the Sabha,

Defendant No.2, which proved the contrary stand taken by the Plaintiff.

59. It was held that aside from bald assertion of Defendant No.6 having

been inducted as a licensee by late Smt. Raj Dulari, no other cogent

evidence was led. Consequently, the Suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed by

learned Civil Judge vide Order dated 22.09.2016.

60. Aggrieved by dismissal of his Suit vide Order of learned Civil Judge

dated 22.09.2016, Plaintiff / Appellant preferred RCA No.61231/2016.

However, the learned District Judge, on re-appreciation of the evidence,

concurred with the findings of the learned Civil Judge and dismissed the

First Appeal vide order dated 03.11.2025

61. Aggrieved by Judgement dated 03.11.2025, Appellant has filed

present Regular Second Appeal.

62. The substantial questions of law, as suggested in the Appeal, are as

under:

“ⅰ) Whether Ld. Courts below have erred in ignoring that

the respondents in spite of admitting Sh. Devki Nandan

Shastri was the tenant in shop no. B-21 and has divided

the said shop in to four Portions A, 1B С & D have failed

to prove that Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri has surrendered

the Portion D of the said shop i.e. B-21 to respondent

no.1.

ii) Whether the plaintiff has discharged the onus to prove

that Smt. Raj Dulari was a tenant in Portion D of the

shop no. B-21 under respondent no.1.

iii) Whether the respondents have failed to discharge the

onus that respondent no. 6 has been inducted as a tenant

by respondent no. 1 in 1977 in Portion D of the said shop.

RSA 34/2026 Page 17 of 30

iv) Whether respondent no. 2 was not entitled to act as

Chairman of respondent no.1 and issue NOC dated

15.05.2009 and NOC dated 02.02.2010.

v) Whether the Ld. Courts below have erred in dismissing

the suit of the plaintiff even while holding that the

respondents have not adducedany cogent evidence to

show that the deceased father of the plaintiff

hassurrendered his tenancy rights in favour respondent

no.6.

vi) Whether the Ld. Trial Courts have erred in dismissing

the suit of the appellant without conclusive finding that

the respondent no. 6 is a tenant in respect of Portion D of

the said shop.

vii) Whether the Ld. Trail Court has erred in not drawing

adverse inference against the respondents for having not

produced the summoned record i.e. the record of the rent

of tenants maintained by respondent no. 1 for the period

1995 to 2008.”

63. The grounds of challenge are that though the initial burden and onus

of proof was on the Appellant, but in view of the unconditional admissions

of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 6, the onus of proof had shifted on the

Respondents and despite there being admissions, the Suit of the Plaintiff /

Appellant has been erroneously dismissed.

64. The Appellant claimed that it was admitted by the Respondents that

late Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri was a tenant under Respondent No.1 in

respect of Shop No.21, which had been sub-divided into four Portions,

privately numbered as A, B, C and D by him.

65. Moreover, it was also admitted by the Respondents that Sh. Devki

Nandan Shastri had surrendered Portions „A‟ and „B‟, while he had retained

the Portions „C‟ and „D‟, in respect of which he continued to be a tenant. Sh.

RSA 34/2026 Page 18 of 30

Devki Nandan Shastri, during his lifetime, was carrying on business in the

name and style of M/s Vijay Corner and M/s Vijay Floor Mills, and

admittedly Respondent No.1 had been receiving the rent from him, till his

demise on 09.08.1995.

66. It is further not in dispute that Smt. Raj Dulari, his wife was accepted

as a tenant by Respondent No.1, who had paid rent till her death, in 2009.

Thereafter, the rent was being received from the Appellant and the rent

stood paid till 31.03.2010, for which the rent receipts had been duly issued

by Respondent No.1.

67. Respondents had been asserting that Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri had

surrendered his tenancy rights in respect of Portion „D‟ of the Shop No.21 in

the year 1977, after which Defendant No.6 was inducted as a tenant in the

Shop, who has been carrying on business since then; the onus heavily lied

on the Respondents to prove these facts by leading cogent evidence.

68. It is stated that the learned Trial Court has held that „Respondents

could not adduce any cogent evidence to show that the deceased father of

the Plaintiff had surrendered his tenancy rights in his favour’, but thereafter,

the learned Trial Court has misdirected the enquiry by postulating that the

Plaintiff has to stand on his own feet and establish his right independently,

without relying upon the loopholes and deficiency in the defence evidence.

69. It has been ignored that in Civil Litigation, the standard of proof is

preponderance of evidence and once the evidence is recorded, the Plaintiff is

entitled to prove his case by reference to entire evidence on record, which

has to be considered to decide the Suit; the evidence led by the Plaintiff is

not to be appreciated in isolation. The admissions made by a party are the

best evidence, which has been ignored.

RSA 34/2026 Page 19 of 30

70. Furthermore, it was for Respondent No.6 to prove his independent

right as a tenant in the suit premises since 1977, which he has failed to

discharge. Respondent No.6 has admitted in his cross-examination that no

rent receipt was ever issued in his favour before April, 2009, i.e. after the

demise of Smt. Raj Dulari in the year 2007. A conspiracy has been hatched

between Respondent No.1, more specifically by Respondent No.2 / Sh.

Suresh Malik, the elected Chairman and Respondent No.6, in fabricating

documents such as No Objection Certificate dated 02.02.2010 for getting the

Electricity Connection in the suit premises, in the name of Defendant No.6.

71. It is asserted that there is no post of Chairman in the Management of

Respondent No.1, which is governed by the office bearers, as per

Memorandum of Articles and rules and regulations. Respondent No.2 is a

person of dubious intentions, who has colluded with some office bearers to

allege himself as Chairman and to fabricate the documents, after taking huge

amount of money from persons, including Respondent No.6.

72. It has further not been considered that Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have not

led any evidence to prove that Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri had surrendered the

suit property, i.e. Shop No.21/D, or that the Shop had been allotted by

Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.6, as tenant therein.

73. It has further not been considered that DW-7 Sh. Kewal Sharma,

Supervisor from the Office of Respondent No.1, had produced the Records

from 2009 onwards, but failed to produce the documents from 1995 to 2008,

on the pretext that they were not available in the Office.

74. It is claimed that Respondent No.1 is the custodian of the Record, but

has failed to produce them and therefore, adverse influence should have

been drawn against the Respondents.

RSA 34/2026 Page 20 of 30

75. Furthermore, the Rent Account Register Ex.PW-7/15 from Page

No.15 onwards, pertained to Respondent No.6. The perusal of this Register

shows that some receipts starting from April 2009; April, May and June,

2014, have been alleged to have been issued to Respondent No.6. However,

neither Respondent No.1 nor Respondent No.6 have placed on record any of

the receipts for the rent received by them.

76. Strangely, only apart from rent for the month of April, May and June,

2014, rest of the rent is alleged to have been received in cash. The record

produced has been fabricated to support Respondent No.6, who had

admitted that no rent receipts were issued by Respondent No.1 in his favour,

since prior to April, 2009. The conduct of Respondent No.6 is not that of a

prudent man, who would not seek the receipts of the rent paid to Respondent

No.1 since 1977.

77. Furthermore, it is admitted by Respondent Nos.1 to 5 that they have

been receiving rent from late Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri and thereafter, from

his wife, Smt. Raj Dulari till April, 2009, while Receipt No.5536 for

Rs.180/- had been issued towards the rent for the period April, 2009 till

March 2010, Ex.PW-1/15.

78. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have faced with the situation of having

received the rent till April, 2010, made an averment in the Written Statement

that the rent was received only in respect of Portion „C‟ of Shop No.21;

however, no evidence has been led by them in support of their assertions.

79. The evidence of the Plaintiff has remained uncontroverted in respect

of Smt. Raj Dulari having been accepted as a tenant of Shop Nos.21/C and

21/D, and she has continued to pay the rent for these two Portions @ Rs.15/-

RSA 34/2026 Page 21 of 30

per month to Respondent No.1, which is also corroborated by the Rent

Receipts Ex.PW-1/9 to 1/16.

80. It is further asserted that DW-8 Sh. Vinod Kumar, UDC from A & C

Department, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, MCD, Delhi, could not produce the

summoned Record.

81. Respondent No.6 had relied upon documents Ex.DW-6/14 to 6/16,

being the Challans issued in the year 1979, 2000 and 2007 by MCD, in his

name. However, the official record pertaining to these documents, has not

been proved. These documents Ex.DW-6/14 to 6/16 are forged and

fabricated documents, which have not been issued by the concerned

Department.

82. It is further asserted that Smt. Raj Dulari had executed a Will Ex.PW-

1/18 bequeathing Portions „C‟ and „D‟, to the Plaintiff / Appellant. This Will

was proved by Sh. O. P. Jhingan, the attesting witness to the Will, which had

been executed much prior to the dispute in the year 2002 and described the

portion of the Suit Property bequeathed by her, as Portions „C‟ and „D‟. Smt.

Raj Dulari had also executed Declaration-cum-Authority Letter dated

17.04.2003 Ex.PW-1/20 addressed to Respondent No.1, to authorise the

Appellant to pay the rent and deal with Portions „C‟ and „D‟ of the Shop

No.21.

83. Furthermore, this Letter had been submitted by the Appellant to

Respondent No.1 along with the Will, after the demise of Smt. Raj Dulari,

for mutation of tenancy in his name. However, Respondent No.1 failed to

respond to this Letter. However, these documents clearly establish that Smt.

Raj Dulari had a share in Portions „C‟ and „D‟ of the Shop in question.

RSA 34/2026 Page 22 of 30

84. It has not been considered that Smt. Raj Dulari, after the demise of

her husband Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri, started the business of eatery

(Dhaba) from Portion „D‟ of the Shop and had joined with Respondent No.6,

who was permitted as a licensee to run the Dhaba business. Smt. Raj Dulari,

throughout, continued to be the tenant and also paid rent till March, 2010.

85. Though Respondent No.6 has alleged to be in possession of the Shop

No.21 in his independent right as a tenant under Respondent No.1, but he

has failed to establish his right. He is liable to remove himself from Portion

„D‟ of the suit Shop, as Plaintiff no longer wishes him to continue in the said

portion.

86. It is further claimed that electricity supply to Portion „D‟ was being

taken from the Electricity Meter installed in the name of Smt. Raj Dulari, in

Portion „C‟. It is only after her demise that in furtherance of conspiracy

between Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.1, a No Objection Certificate

dated 15.05.2009 was given, enabling Respondent No.6 to get an

independent electricity connection in his name for Portion „D‟.

87. Defendant No.6 in his Written Statement, had not disputed that he had

been consuming the Electricity for the Portion „D‟, from the electricity

connection installed in Portion „C‟ in the name of Smt. Raj Dulari. However,

he has taken contradictory stand as DW-1, as to his contentions in his

Written Statement, in his cross-examination, by denying that he was using

the electricity from the meter installed in Portion „C‟ of Shop No.21. Such a

contradictory stand reflects the tenancy of Smt. Raj Dulari in respect of both

Portions i.e. „C‟ and „D‟ of Shop No.21. Respondent No.6 was not a reliable

witness and no reliance could be placed on his testimony.

RSA 34/2026 Page 23 of 30

88. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgement and Decree

dated 03.11.2025 may be set aside and the Suit of the Appellant / Plaintiff be

decreed.

Submissions heard and record perused.

89. The certain background and facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, it is

not denied that late Shri Devki Nandan Shastri was associated with the

construction and renovation of Sanatan Dharam Mandir, now situated at

Late Shri Devki Nandan Shastri Marg, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The

Sanatan Dharam Shopping Complex was developed in early 1970 and

completed in or about 1974. Late Shri Devki Nandan Shastri, President was

elected by the Members of the Sabha. In fact, the road was named after him

as Shri Devki Nandan Shastri Marg and even the statue was installed in the

Mandir Complex, as an expression of gratitude to the departed soul, in

recognition of the contribution of late Shri Devki Nandan Shastri in

construction and renovation of the mandir and development of the area and

society.

90. It is further not in dispute that in order to generate revenue, shops

were constructed around the Mandir and one corner shop was given to Shri

Devki Nandan Shastri, who later on constructed a shop No. B-21 from his

own pocket, for which he spent Rs.2,047/-, as reflected in the Receipt

Ex.PW-1/3 dated 23.04.1974.

91. It is further not in dispute Shri Devki Nandan Shastri, was inducted as

a tenant has been in possession since 1974. His elder son Vijay Shastri

started the business from the shop in the name and style of Vijay Corner

and also Vijay Flour Mill. This is also evident from the Rent Receipt dated

RSA 34/2026 Page 24 of 30

02.08.1980 Ex.PW-1/5. The Electricity Bill Ex.PW1/6 was also installed in

the name of M/s Vijay Flour Mill, at the shop address.

92. The case of the Plaintiff that Shri Devki Nandan Shastri with due

passage of time, sub-divided the shop into four portions and given private

marking as A, B, C and D. It is also not in dispute that with concurrence of

Defendant No. 1, shop Portions bearing private No. A and B, were occupied

by other tenants of Defendant No. 1 and Shri Devki Nandan Shastri and his

family surrendered the tenancy rights, in respect of Portions A and B.

93. The Plaintiff/Appellant has contended that the tenancy in respect of

other two Portions marked C and D was retained by Shri Devki Nandan

Shastri. There is no dispute in Shop No. C, admittedly, Vijay Shastri was

doing the business and after his demise, his son is continuing to be in

possession of Portion C of the shop.

94. The dispute had arisen in respect of shop Portion No. D in which the

Defendant No. 6 Lok Nath Luthra has claimed to have been inducted as a

tenant in 1977, after the tenancy got surrendered by Shri Devki Nandan

Shastri. He consistently states that there was surrender of tenancy of Portion

D and that Defendant No. 6 became a tenant of Defendant No. 1, in respect

of the said premises.

95. Late Smt. Raj Dulari, wife of Shri Devki Nandan Shastri in her

present Suit filed on 31.08.2009, asserted that the tenancy in respect of

Portion D was never surrendered and she continued to be in possession of

Portion C as well as Portion D. In order to prove that she has been in

possession of the suit shop, she had relied upon the Rent Receipts

Ex.PW1/4, PW1/5, PW1/9 and PW1/13 dated 04.04.1974,13.11.1998,

RSA 34/2026 Page 25 of 30

20.04.2005,20.03.2006, vide which she had been paying rent from time to

time.

96. On perusal of these rent receipts, it is observed that the Rent Receipts

are in the name of Smt. Raj Dulari, wife of late Shri Devki Nandan Shastri

and the tenanted premises had been described as the Shop No. B-21, and no

specific portion has been mentioned.

97. It is the case of the Plaintiff himself that the shop B-21, had been

divided into four Portions and Portions A and B had already been

surrendered.

98. The learned Civil Judge had rightly observed that in these Rent

Receipts, it was nowhere indicated that the rent was for the portions C and

D. The tenanted premises had been only described as Shop No.21, in view

of which, it could not be said that the Rent Receipts establish the tenancy of

Raj Dulari in respect of both the portions C and D. Admittedly, Vijay

Shastri, her elder son has been in occupation of Portion C and it was rightly

held by the learned Civil Judge, that there was nothing in the Rent Receipts

to indicate that the rent being paid through the Receipts included the suit

shop portion D.

99. The main defence taken by the Plaintiff was that his mother Raj

Dulari had permitted Defendant No. 6 Lok Nath Luthra to run a Dhaba from

portion D of the shop and he had been inducted by her as a Licensee to look

after the affairs of her Dhaba she had setup in the shop. It was claimed that

as per the arrangement, the profits were to be shared in the ratio of 40:60

with 40% of the share coming to Raj Dulari.

100. The Plaintiff in his cross-examination had asserted that this amount

used to be around Rs.3,500/- to Rs.4,000/-. While this explanation had been

RSA 34/2026 Page 26 of 30

tendered by the Plaintiff to claim that Defendant No. 6 was a Licensee, but

admittedly did not have even a single document to show this arrangement of

Licensor and Licensee between his mother Raj Dulari and Defendant No. 6

Lok Nath Luthra. If there was a Licensor-Licensee relationship, it is difficult

to accept that there would be not even a single document to establish this

claim of the Defendant No. 6 being a Licensee.

101. If there were 40% of share profits coming to Raj Dulari, there would

be some account book to reflect the credit of this profit sharing in her

accounts. Pertinently, not a single document has been produced by the

Plaintiff. Had there been any Dhaba being run by Smt. Raj Dulari, there

would have been some license or permits taken by her for running the

Dhaba, but no such document had been produced.

102. Moreover, if there was a profit sharing in the ratio of 40-60, then there

would have been some bank account or document, to corroborate the

receiving of the profit sharing amount, but none has been produced.

103. It has been rightly observed by the learned Civil Judge, as under:-

“However, Plaintiff during his comprehensive cross-examination by

opposite counsel, stated that he does not have any document to show

that his mother was running a Dhaba a the suit property and he

further never adduced any single documentary proof to show that

Defendant No. 6 was ever inducted as a licensee by his deceased

mother. The Plaintiff also could not produce any document to show

any profit sharing between his deceased mother and Defendant No. 6

in respect of running of Dhaba. The Plaintiff could not produce any

receipt of bill book or any other relevant document showing that his

mother was running a Dhaba in Portion D of property No. B-21.

Neither any document was produced to show the payment of any

license fees at any point of time by Defendant No. 6 to the Plaintiff.”

RSA 34/2026 Page 27 of 30

104. The Plaintiff had relied on a Will dated 05.09.200 Ex. PW1/19 to

asserted that portion C and D of shop No. 21, had been bequeathed to him.

Admittedly, the shop Portion No. C has always been in possession of his

elder brother Vijay Shastri. Had the property been willed to plaintiff, there is

nothing to reflect that he ever asserted his right of ownership in respect of

Shop No. C. Pertinently, the son of the elder brother Vijay Shastri, could

have been a material witness, who has not been examined to support the

assertions of the Plaintiff.

105. Furthermore, the Will in respect of tenancy rightly in respect of Shop

No. D would have been of some consequence, had Raj Dulari been able to

show that Shri Devki Nandan Shastri had not surrendered the tenancy in

respect of Shop No. D and that he had continued to be a tenant and after his

demise, she inherited the tenancy rights. Once, there is nothing to establish

that Shop No. D had not been surrendered by Shri Devki Nandan Shastri, the

Will could not have conferred a title in respect of Shop portion D, to the

Plaintiff.

106. The Defendant No. 6 had taken a specific defence that the shop had

been handed over to him by Shri Devki Nandan Shastri in 1977, on

surrendering his tenancy rights. It cannot be overlooked that Shop Portions

A&B had been admittedly surrendered by Shri Devki Nandan Shastri and,

therefore, the defence of Defendant No. 6 Lok Nath Luthra, in the light of

lack of any document to support the continued tenancy in respect of portion

D, cannot be brushed aside.

107. Pertinently, there were MCD challans Ex.DW-6/14 to DW-6/16 and

Receipts Ex.DW-6/14 and DW-6/15, which are in the name of Defendant

RSA 34/2026 Page 28 of 30

No. 6 in regard to Shop No. B/21D without mention of the portion, which

has not been challenged during the cross-examination of DW-6.

108. Hence, the documents as proved by Defendant No. 6 clearly establish

his long possession in the suit premises since 1977, while there are no

document to support the tenancy right in favour of Raj Dulari and thereafter,

to the Plaintiff.

109. It cannot be overlooked that Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri died on

09.08.1995, while the possession of Defendant No.6 is shown to be since

1977, i.e. during his lifetime, which corresponds to the date of surrender of

tenancy in respect of certain portions of suit shop.

110. Moreover, this weakens the stand of the plaintiff that defendant No.6

was inducted as a licensee by his mother, to look after the dhaba business

that was being run from portion-D. However, this is factually untenable as

the possession of defendant no.6 is shown since 1977, i.e. since the lifetime

of Sh. Devki Nandan Shastri.

111. It has been rightly observed by the learned Civil Judge and upheld by

the learned District Judge that there is no evidence whatsoever to show the

legal or physical possession of the Plaintiff, in the suit shop. The Rent

Receipts as already mentioned above, also do not prove that they were in

respect of Portion D; rather the defence of the Defendants is that it was only

in respect of Portion C in respect of which, admittedly, Raj Dulari was the

tenant and her elder son Vijay Shastri is running his business.

112. Another defence taken by the Plaintiff was that Defendant No. 1 was

claiming himself to be a Chairman of Defendant No. 1, when in fact, there is

no such post in the Sabha. However, it had been explained by Defendant

No.1 to 5 that the post of Chairman had been subsequently created by way

RSA 34/2026 Page 29 of 30

of Resolution. This fact was corroborated by the Minutes of the Association

of the Sabha dated 30.05.2005 Ex.PW-7/6 and thereafter, in the Minutes

dated 12.005.2008 Ex.PW-7/7, 25.02.2010 Ex.PW-7/8.

113. It is also deposed by Defendant No. 6 that the name of the Chairman

and the office bearers of the Sabha, are displayed on the Notice Board, to

which no objection ever has been taken by the Plaintiff.

114. The Plaintiff had relied upon the reply to RTI Application Ex.PW-

1/21 and PW-1/22, but the Reply in RTI merely mentioned that no objection

can be given regarding legality of the post of Chairman and that the list of

governing members, is not available on record.

115. Hence, from the RTI Reply it cannot be said that there was no post of

Chairman or the No Objections Certificate given from installation of

electricity meter in the name of Defendant No. 6, was illegal. The plea of

NOC dated 01.05.2009 Mark-B being forged and fabricated, was held to be

not supported by any cogent evidence.

116. The learned Civil Judge thus, rightly concluded that bare bald

assertions that Defendant No. 6 was the Licensee of Smt. Raj Dulari without

any cogent evidence or any particulars about date, month and year, when he

was inducted or to prove that the Dhaba being run by Defendant No. 6 was

as a Licensee of Smt. Raj Dulari, the Plaintiff could not have sought the

relief of mandatory injunction or possession, as sought by him.

117. The learned Civil Judge, on appreciation of evidence, concluded that

there was no relationship of Licensor and Licensee between Raj Dulari and

Defendant No. 6 and, therefore, the Suit for possession/mandatory

injunction has been rightly dismissed.

RSA 34/2026 Page 30 of 30

118. The learned District Judge had re-appreciated the entire evidence

and upheld the findings of facts and dismissed the Appeal.

Conclusion:

119. The aforesaid discussion clearly reflects that all the challenges were

on facts, which had been concurrently held against the plaintiff/Appellant.

There are no substantial questions of law, which have emerged in the

present Appeal.

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

dismissed. Pending Applications, if any, are accordingly, disposed of.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 02, 2026

va/n