Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 7 Civ Suit 173/26
NAEEM FATIMA AND ORS
Vs.
KHALIL AHMAD AND ORS
21.07.2026
Present: None for plaintiff.
Sh. Kanik Jain, Ld. counsel for defendant.
1. By this order, I shall dispose of an application u/o 39
Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff thereby praying an ad-
interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants
thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, associates,
assigns, legal heirs from creating third party interest in respect of the
suit property bearing house no. Q-25/2, out of khasra no. 112, Second
Floor, situated in the area of Village Ghonda Chauhan Banger, in the
abadi of Gali no. 18, Brahmpuri, Illaqa Shahdara, North-East, Delhi-
110053, more specifically shown as red in the site plan.
2. The case of the plaintiffs as averred in the plaint is that
the plaintiffs are absolute and registerd co-owners of built up property
measuring area 90 sq. yds. bearing property no. Q-25/2, out of khasra
no. 112, Second Floor, situated in the area of Village Ghonda Chauhan
Banger, in the abadi of Gali no. 18, Brahmpuri, Illaqa Shahdara,
North-East, Delhi-110053 (hereinafter called suit property). It is
further stated that the defendants are tenant of the plaintiffs since
November 2023, on monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- excluding electricity
and water charges and at the time of taking the flat/floor was agreed
between defendants and the plaintiffs that the rent will be increased @
10 % after every 3 years. It is further stated that the defendants
assured the plaintiffs that they will pay the rent and electricity bill on
Page no. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
time and document will be provided to the plaintiffs for the rent
agreement. It is further stated that after coming in the tenancy of the
plaintiffs, the defendants become dishonest and the defendants did not
pay single penny towards the rent as well as electricity bill despite
repeated request made by the plaintiffs since November 2023. It is
further stated that on 22.12.2023, the plaintiffs demanded the ID proof
of the defendants for executing the rent agreement but the defendants
flatly refused to gave their ID proof to the plaintiff and the plaintiffs
further refused to pay the arrears of rent and electricity charges from
the defendants. It is further stated that the plaintiffs are regularly
demanding their arrear of rent from both of the defendants but the
defendants flatly refuses to pay the arresrs of rent and other charges to
the plaintiffs. It is further stated that in view of above said facts and
circumstances, the defendants are liable to pay the whole arrears of
rent to the plaintiffs till notice was sent by the plaintiff. It is further
stated that the arrear of rent of Rs. 2,80,000/- from the month of
November 2023 to till the month of February 2024 is to be paid by the
defendants. It is further stated that the plaintiffs no more interested to
keep the tenant to the defendants and teminate the tenancy with
immediate effect. It is further stated that on 10.02.2026, the plaintiff
no. 1 and 2 alongwith their husband went to the suit property and
requested the defendants to vacate the suit property, then the
defendants threatened and misbehaved with the plaintiffs. It is further
stated that the plaintiffs sent a legal notice through their counsel on
20.02.2026 which was duly served upon the defendants but the
defendants neither complied the notice nor replied the same.
3. Per contra, in the written statement filed on behalf of
defendants that the plaintiffs have deliberately created an entire false
Page no. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
narrative of landlord-tenant relationship. It is further stated that it is
emphatically denied that the Defendants were ever inducted as tenants
by the Plaintiffs in November 2023, or at any other time. It is further
stated that no rent agreement, written or oral, was ever executed, no
security deposit was ever paid, and no rent ledger, receipt, or demand
exists because no tenancy ever existed between the parties. It is further
stated that the Defendants are not tenants or licensees, but the absolute
owners-in-possession of the suit property. It is further stated that the
original, lawful owner of the entire property was Late Sh. Mohd.
Tehsin (the paternal uncle of Defendant No. 2, Smt. Shahin). Out of
natural love, affection, and gratitude for her life-long care, Sh. Tehsin
voluntarily gifted (Hiba) the absolute ownership of the First and
Second floors to Defendant No. 2 in April 2008. It is further stated
that Defendant No. 2 has lived in the Suit Property continuously,
openly, and peacefully for 40 years. It is further stated that the address
of the Suit Property is explicitly recorded on the Nikahnama
(Marriage Certificate) of Defendant No. 2 dating back to April 8,
1986, when her marriage to Defendant No. 1 was solemnized at this
exact property. This nearly four-decade-old official document
completely shatters the Plaintiffs' fictional timeline and establishes
long-settled, undisturbed possession as owners. It is further stated that
the continuous, settled physical possession of the Defendants as
absolute owners is heavily corroborated by historical family
photographs taken inside and at the entrance of the Suit Property over
several decades. It is further stated that the Plaintiffs have built their
entire case on an illegal, fabricated, and fraudulent paper-trail of sham
documents created in late 2023 to illegally usurp the property. These
transactions consist of:
Page no. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
i. A Notarized Gift Deed, GPA, and Will dated
02/11/2023 from Sh. Kamaal Ahmad (husband of
Plaintiff No.1 Naeem Fatima) transferring a 30 sq.
yard portion to his own wife.
ii. A matching set of Notarized documents dated
02/11/2023 from Sh. Zaheer Ahmad (husband of
Plaintiff No. 2 Islam Fatima) to his own wife.
iii. A GPA, Agreement to Sell, and Will dated
26/10/2023 executed by Smt. Aisha Khatoon (widow
of Late Tehsin) to her sister Smt. Hassana (Plaintiff
No. 3).
3.1 It is further stated that all these documents are legally
non-est and void ab initio. None of these documents outline any
previous chain of title showing how the executants (such as the
husbands, Sh. Kamaal or Sh. Zaheer) ever acquired ownership rights
over Sh. Tehsin's property. Because Late Sh. Tehsin had already fully
divested his title via Hiba in 2008, no family member could
subsequently manufacture a legal title. Under the settled principle of
law, (no one can transfer what they do not own), the Plaintiffs' chain
of documents holds no legal validity. It is further stated that the
Plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of truth and misrepresentation of
facts. They have deliberately hidden the 2008 Hiba, the long-standing
family arrangement, and the fact that they were served a
comprehensive legal reply on 15/04/2026 exposing their fraud.
Litigants who rely on perjury and hide material facts are completely
barred from seeking equitable or discretionary relief from this Hon'ble
Court. It is further stated that the illegal acts of the Plaintiffs in
creating mock titles in 2023 cast a dark cloud over the Defendants'
absolute rights. Consequently, a the defendants herein comprehensive
substantive suit titled "Shahin vs. Aisha Khatoon & Ors." (Civil Suit
No. 194/2026) has already been instituted by the Defendants before
Page no. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
the District Court, North-East, Karkardooma. This cross-suit formally
seeks a Decree of Declaration to establish Defendant No. 2 as the
absolute owner and demands the legal cancellation of the Plaintiffs'
fraudulent 2023 GPA, Will, and Gift Deeds. Allowing the present
eviction plot to proceed would lead to conflicting decrees and a
chaotic multiplicity of litigation. It is further stated that the suit has
been incorrectly and artificially undervalued by the Plaintiffs to avoid
paying standard ad-valorem court fees. While the Plaintiffs
fraudulently ask for recovery of physical possession, mesne profits,
and injunctions over prime real estate, they have completely skipped
proper legal valuation metrics based on actual market value. The suit
is liable to be stayed or rejected under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act.
It is further stated that the plaintiffs have deliberately concealed the
factum of Hiba and long, settled possession of the defendants and the
claim of 2,80,000/- as arrears and 20,000/- per month as mesne	₹ ₹
profits are arbitrary and untenable in absence of any tenancy.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of record shows that the defendants have
specifically stated themselves to be in possession of suit property for
40 years and claimed themselves to be owner by way of Hiba since
April 2008. Plaintiff failed to give any ownership document of suit
property in his favour. The plaintiff not placed on record any rent deed
thereby showing himself to be landlord and the defendants as tenant in
the suit property. The plaintiff also not brought on record any rent
receipt to show that the defendants are in possession of suit property
in the capacity of tenants of plaintiff. In view of above, there is no
prima facie case in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff has also failed to
Page no. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
disclose that how he will suffer irreparable loss and injury which
cannot be compensated in terms of money if the present application is
not allowed. Accordingly, balance of convenience do not tilt in favour
of plaintiff, hence, the application u/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is hereby
dismissed.
6. The observation made above do not tantamount to final
opinion on merits of case.
7. Matter is adjourned for replication, admission-denial and
framing of issues.
It be relisted on 03.08.2026.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
21.07.2026
Page no. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --