Final Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: DLET010006122025
In The Court of Sh.Hem Singh,
District Judge-01, (East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
RCA DJ No.9/2025
CNR No.DLET01-0006122025
In the matter of :-
1.) M/s Anisha TV Corner
At: 11, Brijpuri Extension,
Parwana Road, Khureji Khas,
Delhi-110051.
2.) Sh. S.K. Sawhney
C/o Anisha TV Corner
At: 11, Brijpuri Extension,
Parwana Road, Khureji Khas,
Delhi-110051.
.....Appellants
Versus
Sh. Mahender Singh
S/o Late Ram Singh
R/o 175, Ground Floor, Gagan Vihar,
Delhi-110051.
.....Respondent
Date of Institution : 10.02.2025
Date of Reserving Order : 12.01.2026
Date of Decision : 21.01.2026
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.1of16
-- 1 of 16 --
J U D G M E N T
1.) Vide this order, I shall dispose of an appeal preferred by
appellants/ defendants under Section 96 r/w Order 41 of CPC
against respondent/ plaintiff and cross objections filed by
respondent/ plaintiff.
2.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the
impugned judgment and decree dated 07.01.2025 passed by Ld.
ACJ/CCJ/ARC, East, KKD, Delhi passed in Civil Suit
No.431/2019 titled as
‘Mahender Singh Vs. M/S Anisha TV
Corner & Anr.’ wherein suit of the plaintiff (respondent herein),
was decreed.
3.) The germane of the instant lis is the mesne profit and
recovery of possession of shop admeasuring 18-1/2’ X 16-1/2’
(two shops made as one shop) bearing no.11, Brijpuri Extension,
Parwana Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Property’).
4.) FACTUAL MATRIX:-
a) The respondent has filed the suit for possession and
recovery of mesne profit in respect of the property admeasuring
18-1/2’ X 16-1/2’ (two shops made as one shop) bearing no.11,
Brijpuri Extension, Parwana Road, Delhi against the appellants/
defendants. The respondent claimed to be the owner of suit
property and let out the same to appellants at a monthly rent @
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.2of16
-- 2 of 16 --
Rs.3,000/- excluding electricity charges. As per the claim of
respondent, appellants were in arrears of rent and by way of
notices issued by the respondent, the monthly rent was increased
to Rs.3,300/- and thereafter, further increased to Rs.3,600/- per
month, however, appellants have failed to pay the rent even after
issuance of legal notices. In the written statement filed by the
appellants, they have took various objections and denied all the
pleadings raised in the plaint of respondent/ plaintiff, however,
Ld. Trial Court failed to consider them and partly decreed the suit
of respondent. Therefore, by way of present appeal, appellants
are praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated
07.01.2025.
b) In response, it is stated that the present appeal is liable to
be dismissed. Appellants are the old tenants of suit property at
monthly rent @ Rs.3,000/-. Since appellants were habitual
defaultors in making payment of rent, legal notice dated
26.07.2014 (demand notice and increase of 10% in rent) was
issued to them as per which rent to be paid by appellants came to
Rs.3,300/- per month. A false and delayed reply dated 01.09.2014
was sent by appellants to respondent. Thereafter, an eviction
petition bearing RC no.254/2016 u/s 14(i) & (j) of DRC Act filed
by the respondent which was decided vide order dated
24.04.2018 and eviction order was passed in favour of the
respondent. However, the said order was set aside vide order
dated 29.01.2019 and matter was remanded back to the Court of
Ld. ARC, East, KKD qua the issue of rent. Again legal notice
dated 31.08.2017 issued by respondent to appellants thereby
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.3of16
-- 3 of 16 --
increasing rent by further 10% and rent came to Rs.3,630/- per
month to be paid within one month of service of said legal notice.
However, appellants failed to comply the said notice and
continued to pay the rent of Rs.3,300/- per month. Since the rent
came to Rs.3,630/-, appellants cannot seek protection under the
provisions of DRC Act and their tenancy covered under the
Transfer of Property Act. Another notice dated 17.11.2017 was
issued to hand over the possession of suit property and after
expiry of 15 days after service of said notice, appellants became
the illegal occupants of suit property. After the rent of the suit
property exceeded Rs.3,500/-, the respondent withdrew his
eviction petition. Thereafter, another legal notice dated
20.03.2019 issued by the respondent mentioning earlier legal
notices, arrears of rent @ Rs.3,630/- per month, termination of
tenancy of appellants and handing over the possession of suit
property. The legal notices dated 31.08.2017, 17.11.2017 and
20.03.2019 were also duly proved by respondent wherein two
shops were shown to be merged in one shop. Further, appellant
no.2 never disputed the facts mentioned in Ex.PW1/3 wherein
respondent is the owner and landlord of big shop admeasuring
18-1/2’ X 16-1/2’ (two shops made as one shop) bearing no.11,
Brijpuri Extension, Parwana Road, Delhi and that rent of the
same is Rs.3,000/- per month excluding electricity charges. In
introductory para of Ex.PW1/3, appellant no.2 represented
himself as proprietor of M/s Anisha TV Corner and there was no
mention in respect of M/s Anisha TV Centre. This reveals that
appellants were only paying single rent for M/s Anisha TV
Corner. Therefore, arrears of rent were also demanded from M/s
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.4of16
-- 4 of 16 --
Anisha TV Corner only. Further, appellants had not summoned
the witnesses to prove their documents and they also failed to
prove the existence of M/s Anisha TV Centre. On these grounds,
dismissal of present appeal is prayed.
c) On the basis of the above pleadings, issues were framed by
the Ld. Trial Court and after hearing arguments on behalf of both
the parties and partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-
Sh. Mahender Singh, respondent herein.
Hence, this appeal.
5.) GROUNDS OF APPEAL:-
Feeling aggrieved, appellants have filed the instant appeal
challenging the impugned order primarily on the following
grounds:-
a) That the Ld. Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the suit as per Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 as the collective rent of two shops is Rs.3,300/-. Therefore,
the suit was liable to be dismissed
inlimini.
b) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the
plaintiff/ respondent himself impleaded M/s Anisha TV Corner
and S.K. Sawhney as separate parties which shows that there are
two separate tenancies.
c) Further, Ld. Trial Court also failed to consider that plaintiff
himself admitted in the alleged legal notices as well as in plaint
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.5of16
-- 5 of 16 --
that there were two shops under the proprietorship of husband
and wife.
d) The Ld. Trial Court had appreciated the fact that there were
two separate shops at the time of commencement of tenancy,
however, passed an eviction order by considering suit property as
single shop. Ld. Trial Court also failed to consider that relevant
date to determine the tenancy is the date of its commencement
and not the subsequent events since it was not the case of
plaintiff that appellants had handed over the two tenanted shops
before its merger and fresh tenancy was commenced thereof.
e) The Ld. Trial Court has not considered that plaintiff is not
allowed to merge the rent of two distinct shops and file a suit for
possession of the same. The plaintiff could have preferred an
eviction petition u/s 14 of DRC Act but he will not be able to
defeat the protection granted to tenant in the Act.
f) The Ld. Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that two
tenanted shops can only be vacated by filing two separate
eviction petitions since the rent for each shop was Rs.1650/- per
month.
g) The Ld. Trial Court also not considered that the original
official documents relied upon by appellants were more than 30
years old and shall be presumed to be genuine and not required to
be proved by summoned witness. The said documents were also
not challenged by respondent during the cross-examination of
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.6of16
-- 6 of 16 --
appellants. The Ld. Trial Court had considered the documents of
respondent/ plaintiff which were objected and marked by him,
however, not considered the original exhibited documents of
defendants/ appellants.
h) The suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed for non-
joinder of necessary parties since neither Mrs. Kiran Sawhney
was impleaded in the suit nor any legal notice had been issued to
her. Further, the plaint was also liable to be rejected in absence of
valid ‘Notice to Quit’ given to tenant.
6.) Cross-objections filed wherein respondent claimed
damages/ mesne profit @ Rs.15,000/- per month against the
damages of Rs.3,630/- per month granted by the Ld. Trial Court
from the date of decree till handing over of the possession of suit
property.
7.) GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS:-
The cross objections filed on behalf of the respondent on
following grounds:-
a) The Ld. Trial Court erred in awarding damages @
Rs.3630/- per month instead @ Rs.15,000/- per month despite
proving the legal notices dated 31.08.2017, 17.11.2017 and
20.03.2019. By virtue of said legal notices, tenancy of suit
premises was determined and after its termination, appellants
became the unauthorized occupants in suit property. Therefore,
respondent/ plaintiff became entitled to claim damages of
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.7of16
-- 7 of 16 --
Rs.15,000/- per month.
b) Further, Ld. Trial Court did not consider that
respondent was not cross-examined by appellants on the aspect of
claiming of damages to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month. In
view of the same, Ld. Trial Court has erroneously decided the
issue no. (iii) in the impugned judgment and the same is liable to
be set aside.
8.) In reply to the cross objections, appellants submits that the
cross objections of the respondent is not maintainable as the
findings given in issue no.(iii) of the impugned judgment are
perverse. It is denied that appellants are not the illegal occupants
in the suit premises, therefore they are not liable to pay damages
@ Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, the rent of suit premises is
Rs.3300/- per month, therefore the appellants came under the
protection of DRC Act. In view of the same, appellants cannot be
treated as unauthorized occupants in the suit property. However,
Ld. Trial Court failed to determine the status of the appellants in
the suit property and had wrongly decided the issue no. (iii).
9.) Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
10.) FINDINGS:-
a) Initially the respondent / plaintiff filed the suit for
possession and mesne profit against the appellants / defendants
claiming to be the owner/landlord of the premises in question
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.8of16
-- 8 of 16 --
stating that the premises was let out to the appellants / defendants
at monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- exclusive of electricity charges.
Later on, the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs.3,300/- and
subsequently to Rs.3,630/- per month. The notice thereof was
also issued to the appellants / defendants.
b) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as
“Atma
Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pal Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.”
2002 (62) DRJ 623 held that in order to succeed in the suit for
possession filed against the tenant, the plaintiff has to prove the
following ingredients:-
a) That there is relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties.
b) Tenancy in respect of the premises has come to an end
either by efflux of time or by a valid notice sent by the
plaintiffs to the defendant under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act and duly served on the defendant.
c) The rent of the premises in question is more than
Rs.3,500/- per month and therefore, there is no protection
of the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act available to the
tenant.
c) As a matter of fact, the appellants/defendants have not
denied landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent/plaintiff,
however, it is the case of the appellants / defendants that there
were two separate adjacent shops which were taken on rent by
the appellants / defendants from the respondent/plaintiff and the
final enhanced collective rent for both the shop is Rs. 3,300/- i.e.
Rs. 1,650/- for each shop, therefore, the impugned judgment is
nullity as the same has been passed by the Ld. Trial Court
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.9of16
-- 9 of 16 --
without jurisdiction. Reliance is place upon the Section 50 read
with Section 3(c) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is also
the case of the appellants/defendants that notice of eviction was
never served upon them.
d) In view the aforementioned facts following points are
emerges for the determination by this Court.
i. Whether there were two tenancies as claimed by the
appellants/defendants?
ii. What was the final enhanced monthly rent?
i) Whether there were two tenancies as claimed by the
appellants/defendants?
As it was the case of the appellants/defendants that there
are two tenancies i.e. one in the name of Anisha T.V. Centre and
another in the name of Anisha T. V. Corner, the onus to prove
factum of two tenancies were upon the appellants/defendants. In
support of their stand appellants/defendants placed on record
Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) to Ex.DW1/11(OSR). However, the
appellants/defendants did not summon relevant witnesses from
the concerned departments to prove these documents. It is settled
law that mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the
proof of a documents and the document has to be proved by the
concerned party as per the law of evidence. Even otherwise, a
perusal of said documents would only lead to an inference that
the appellants/defendants had been operating their business from
the premises during relevant time in the name of Anisha TV
Centre. In considered view of this Court, mere fact that
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.10of16
-- 10 of 16 --
appellants/defendants had operating their business from the
premises in question in different names would not lead to an
inference that there were two tenancies. The fact of operation of
two or more businesses from same premises is entirely different
from fact of existence of two separate tenancies. The
appellants/defendants have not placed any document i.e. rent
deeds to prove existence of two tenancies. It is also not proved by
the appellants/ defendants that Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) to
Ex.DW1/11(OSR) were in the knowledge in the or same
acknowledged by the respondent/plaintiff. Further the
appellants/defendants also failed to show separate payments of
monthly rentals. In view of the abovementioned considerations, it
is held that there was only single tenancy in respect of premises
in question between appellants/ defendants and respondent/
plaintiff.
ii) What was the final enhanced monthly rent?
The appellants/defendants have admitted the enhancement
of monthly rent from Rs.3000/- to 3,300/-, however denied the
final enhancement of the same to Rs. 3630/- and stated that they
have never received legal notices dated 31.08.2017 and
17.11.2017. At this stage I would refer to the relevant paras of the
impugned judgment where the Ld. Trial Court has aptly dealt
with the said issue.
“11. It is an admitted fact that the rent of
the suit property was Rs 3000/- in the year 2011
and later on it was further increased to Rs 3300/-
per month. As per the plaintiff, the rent was
further increased to Rs 3,300/- in the year 2014.
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.11of16
-- 11 of 16 --
The rate was increased to Rs 3300/- by the virtue
of the notice dated 26.07.2014 sent by the
plaintiff to the defendant. The controversy is
regarding the increase of the rent from Rs 3300/-
to Rs 3630/- which was increased by sending the
legal notice dated 31.08.2017 bearing Mark E
and again on 17.11.2017 bearing Mark G. It is the
stand of the defendant that these notices were not
received by him. To prove the contrary, the
plaintiff summoned PW -2 , Sh. Arjun , Postal
Assistant, Krishna Nagar who brought on record
the report Mark Y as per which the records
pertaining to the service of notices bearing Mark
E and Mark G have been weeded out.
12. Mark A is the legal notice dated
26.07.2014 whereby the rent of the suit property
was increased from Rs 3000/- to Rs 3300/- which
was duly replied by the defendant no 2 vide legal
notice dated 01.09.2014 bearing Ex PW 1/3 . In
Ex PW1/3 , it is clearly specified that it is a reply
to the legal notice dated 26.07.2014( Mark A).
No evidence has been led by the defendants to
prove that Mark A is forged and fabricated and
some other legal notice other than Mark A was
sent to the defendant of which reply bearing Ex
PW1/3 was sent by the defendants to the
plaintiff . If this is the case, in addition to this, the
admission of the defendant no 2 that the rent was
increased to Rs 3300 coupled with the reply
bearing Ex PW 1/3 goes on to show that Mark A
has been admitted by the defendants by necessary
implications.
13. Going forward, the address mentioned
in Mark A bears the same address of the
defendant no 2 as mentioned in the subsequent
legal notices dated 31.08.2017 and 17.11.2017
(Mark H and Mark G ) and it has also been
admitted by the defendant in his cross-
examination that Mark A bears the correct
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.12of16
-- 12 of 16 --
address of the defendant. The plaintiff has also
placed on record the postal receipts bearing Ex
PW1/8 and PW1/11 whereby Mark G and Mark
H were sent by post. If this is the scenario where
Mark A, Mark H and Mark G bears the same
address and Mark A has been admitted to be
received by the defendant no 2 ( as discussed in
the preceding paras), then it could be safely
presumed that Mark H and Mark G were also
received by the defendant no.2 in light of Section
27 of General Clauses Act, 1897.”
I agree with and affirm the view taken by Ld. Trial Court
that when legal notice dated 26.07.2014 was delivered to the
appellants/defendants on same address then inference can be
taken that subsequent legal notices were also delivered to them at
that address. No contrary evidence led by the
appellants/defendants to prove otherwise.
I may also note here that while in this case, the relevant
notices were delivered upon the appellants/defendants, but even
otherwise the law as laid by the Supreme Court is that mere filing
of a suit is itself a notice on the tenant to quit. Relevant para of
the judgment in
“Nopany Investments(P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh
(HUF)”, 2008 2 SCC 728 is as follows:-
"22. In the present case, after serving a notice
under Section 6-A read with Section 8 of the Act,
the protection of the tenant under the Act
automatically ceased to exist as the rent of the
tenanted premises exceeded Rs 3500 and the bar
of Section 3(c) came into play. At the risk of
repetition, since, in the present case, the increase
of rent by 10% on the rent agreed upon between
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.13of16
-- 13 of 16 --
the appellant and the respondent brought the suit
premises out of the purview of the Act in view
of Section 3(c) of the Act, it was not necessary to
take leave of the Rent Controller and the suit, as
noted hereinabove, could be filed by the landlord
under the general law. The landlord was only
required to serve a notice on the tenant expressing
his intention to make such increase. When the
eviction petition was pending before the
Additional Rent Controller and the order passed
by him under Section 15 of the Act directing the
appellant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs 3500
was also subsisting, the notice dated 9-1-1992 was
sent by the respondent to the appellant intimating
him that he wished to increase the rent by 10 per
cent. Subsequent to this notice, another notice
dated 31-3-1992 was sent by the respondent
intimating the appellant that by virtue of the
notice dated 9-1-1992 and in view of Section 6-
A of the Act, the rent stood enhanced by 10 per
cent i.e. from Rs 3500 to Rs 3850. It is an
admitted position that the tenancy of the appellant
was terminated by a further notice dated 16-7-
1992/17-7-1992. Subsequent to this, Eviction
Petition No. 432 of 1984 was withdrawn by the
respondent on 20-8-1992 and the suit for eviction,
out of which the present appeal has arisen, was
filed on 6-2-1993. That being the factual position,
it cannot at all be said that the suit could not be
filed without the leave of the Additional Rent
Controller when, admittedly, at the time of filing
of the said suit, the eviction petition before the
Additional Rent Controller had already been
withdrawn nor can it be said that the notice of
increase of rent and termination of tenancy could
not be given simultaneously, when, in fact, the
notice dated 16-7-1992/17-7-1992 was also a
notice to quit and the notice intending increase of
rent in terms of Section 6-A of the Act was earlier
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.14of16
-- 14 of 16 --
in date than the notice dated 16-7-1992/17-7-
1992. In any view of the matter, it is well settled
that filing of an eviction suit under the general
law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no
notice to quit was necessary under Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act in order to enable the
respondent to get a decree of eviction against the
appellant. This view has also been expressed in
the decision of this Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar
v. Yesodai Ammal [(1979) 4 SCC 214]."
It is further settled law that notice of increase of rent and
termination of tenancy can be given simultaneously. In view of
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it can easily
infer that appellants had notice of increased rent as well as
termination of their tenancy on filing of the suit in question,
therefore, mere excuse of non-receiving legal notices dated
31.08.2017 & 17.11.2017 without any further supportive
evidence would not save the appellants from eviction from the
premises in question. Further, it is not the case of the appellants
that rent of the premises in question cannot be increased by 10%
in every three years as on earlier occasion, the appellants
admitted the enhancement of rent from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,300/-
per month.
e) So far as the cross-objections filed by respondent/ plaintiff
is concerned, it is the case of the respondent that appellants are
liable to pay damages @ Rs.15,000/- per month for illegal
occupation of the premises in question after serving of legal
notice dated 20.03.2019. The burden to prove that the respondent
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.15of16
-- 15 of 16 --
is entitled for the aforesaid damages was upon the respondent.
However, no cogent evidence led by the respondent in this
regard. Even in legal notice dated 31.08.2017 and 17.11.2017,
enhancement of 10% in the existent rent was only sought by the
respondent and no steps were taken by the respondent to
determine the standard rent as per the provisions of DRC Act,
1958. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for damages, as
prayed by him in cross-objections and the Ld. Trial Court has
rightly decided the issue no. (iii) in impugned judgment.
f) In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the
impugned judgment dated 07.01.2025 does not suffer from any
infirmity or error of law. Accordingly, no interference in the
impugned judgment is called for. The instant appeal stands
dismissed being devoid of merits. The cross-objections filed on
behalf of the respondent also stands dismissed.
No orders as to cost.
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for
information and record.
Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room.
TCR be sent back.
Announced in the open
Court on 21.01.2026
(Hem Singh)
District Judge-01
(East)/KKD/Delhi
RCA DJ NO.9/25
	(M/s Anisha TV Corner & Anr. VS. S.K. Sawhney)
Pgno.16of16
-- 16 of 16 --