Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS No. 428/25 Page no. 1 of 4
13 Civ Suit 428/25 POONAM SHARMA Vs. DEEP MALA DUBEY
15.04.2026
1. Vide this order, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC
filed by the plaintiff dated 03.09.2025 will be disposed of.
2. The application, in brief, is that the defendant is a tenant of the
plaintiff who was inducted as a tenant in the year 2018, and the defendant had been
paying rent regularly to the plaintiff at the rate of 12,500 per month till March,	₹
2024. The rent was increased to 13,000, which was also paid by the defendant to	₹
the plaintiff till February 2025, and thereafter the defendant stopped paying rent to
the plaintiff. The defendant in the present case has denied the landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties, though in another suit bearing no. 259/25 filed by
the defendant against the plaintiff and the husband and daughter of the plaintiff, the
defendant has admitted the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Thus, it
is prayed that the defendant be directed to pay the arrears of rent from the month of
April 2025 at the rate of 13,000 up to the date of institution of the suit, and further	₹
be directed to pay monthly rent of 13,000 per month till the final disposal of the	₹
case.
3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the defendant, wherein, briefly, it is
averred that there exists no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, as the
defendant is the proposed buyer of the suit property, who proposed to buy the suit
property from the husband and daughter of the plaintiff, who represented themselves
as the owners of the suit property, for a sum of 26 lakh. Further, the electricity	₹
meter installed at the suit property is also in the name of Ms. Anjali Sharma, daughter
of the plaintiff, which further shows that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit
-- 1 of 4 --
CS No. 428/25 Page no. 2 of 4
property. The suit property was agreed to be purchased for a total consideration of
26 lakh, out of which part payment of 12,52,000 has already been paid in	₹ ₹
installments by the defendant. It was further agreed between the husband of the
plaintiff and the defendant that as and when the total amount of 26 lakh is paid by	₹
the defendant, the husband of the plaintiff will execute a sale deed in favour of the
defendant qua the suit property. Even after the payment of 50% of the consideration
amount, the husband of the plaintiff is refusing to execute an agreement to sell in
favour of the defendant, and thus, the present application as well as the present suit
is a gross abuse of the process of law, and it is prayed that the application be
dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of
possession, permanent injunction, and recovery of arrears of rent from the defendant.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is her tenant, having been inducted as
such in the year 2018, and that she regularly paid rent at the rate of 12,500 per	₹
month till March 2024, and thereafter at the enhanced rate of 13,000 per month till	₹
February 2025.
6. Though the defendant in the present case has denied the existence of a
landlord–tenant relationship between the parties, in another suit filed by the
defendant herein against the plaintiff herein, the plaintiff’s husband, and the
plaintiff’s daughter, bearing Civil Suit No. 259/25, the defendant has affirmed the
same facts as narrated in the present plaint. In paragraph 2 of the plaint of the other
suit, the defendant therein has admitted that she was inducted as a tenant by the
plaintiff and her family in the suit property on 29th March 2018.
-- 2 of 4 --
CS No. 428/25 Page no. 3 of 4
7. Further, in paragraph 8 of the plaint in the said suit, it has been
admitted that she had been regularly paying rent of 12,500 per month to the plaintiff	₹
and her family, and thereafter at the enhanced rate of 13,000 per month from	₹
February 2024 till February 2025. It has also been stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of
the plaint in the said suit that a sum of 12,52,000, paid as part consideration for the	₹
purchase of the suit property, was in addition to the rent being paid by the defendant
herein to the plaintiff and her family.
8. So, hypothetically, even if it is presumed that there existed some
agreement between the defendant herein and the husband of the plaintiff for the
purchase of the suit property for a total consideration of 26,00,000, and that a part	₹
payment to the tune of 12,52,000 was indeed made by the defendant, even then, in	₹
view of the plaint filed by the defendant herein in the other suit, the status of the
defendant qua the plaintiff remains that of tenant and landlord.
9. Further, whether there existed any agreement between the husband of
the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the purchase of the suit property is the
subject matter of the other suit, which shall be adjudicated upon on the basis of
evidence led by the parties. However, the fact in issues in the present case is whether
there existed a landlord–tenant relationship between the parties and what was the
agreed rate of rent between them. On both these aspects, there is a clear-cut
admission made by the defendant herein in the other suit filed by her.
10. It is also true that no admission per se has been made by the defendant
in the written statement filed in the present suit; however, there is an unambiguous
admission made by the defendant in the plaint filed by her in the other suit and the
certified copy of the plaint of the other suit has already been brought on record by
-- 3 of 4 --
CS No. 428/25 Page no. 4 of 4
the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff has filed the sale deed qua the suit property on
record which shows that she is the owner of the suit property. In addition to this, the
defendant herein has already admitted that the plaintiff along with other family
members are her landlord and therefore she is estopped to challenge the title of the
plaintiff by virtue of section 116 of Indian Evidence Act.
11. By way of the present application, the plaintiff is seeking arrears of
rent for the period prior to the filing of the present suit as well as arrears of rent
accrued during the pendency of the present suit and future rent. It is made clear that
the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC is only applicable for the period during
which the suit remains pending and the contours of Order 39 Rule 10 CPC does not
extend to time prior to filing of the suit.
12. Accordingly, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC dated
03.09.2025 is partly allowed, and the defendant is directed to pay the arrears of rent
@ Rs 13,000/- per month from June, 2025 till March, 2026 within one month from
the day of this order. Further, the defendant is directed to pay the monthly rent @
Rs 13,000/- for the month of April 2026 onwards till the pendency of this case by
15th day of each successive month when the rent falls due.
13. The aforesaid arrears and rent shall be paid by the defendant directly
in the bank account of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to file her bank account
details in the court within 3 days from today.
(VINIK JAIN)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (East)
KKD Courts, Delhi/15.04.2026
-- 4 of 4 --