Tenant Cannot Dispute Landlord’s Title During Tenancy Despite Alleged Forged Will: Delhi High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain dismissed an appeal against a decree directing a tenant to vacate a commercial premises in Karawal Nagar, holding that the tenant could not dispute the landlord’s ownership during the subsistence of tenancy. The Court reaffirmed that once a tenant is inducted into possession, they are estopped from denying the landlord’s title, even when claims of forgery are raised without credible proof or challenge from other heirs. Upholding the decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Bench directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession within three months.
The dispute arose from a tenancy concerning a small commercial shop located in Karawal Nagar, Delhi, where the tenant had been inducted by the landlord’s mother at a monthly rent of ₹600, later increased to ₹780. Following the landlord’s mother’s death, her son claimed ownership of the premises under a Will executed in April 2022. The tenant alleged that rent had been paid until mid-2011 and that subsequent rent was refused, while the landlord asserted default since 2011 and unlawful occupation thereafter.
An earlier eviction petition filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act was withdrawn after the property was found to fall outside the Act’s notified areas. The landlord later issued a termination notice in January 2024 and filed a suit seeking possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, and injunction. The tenant objected to the court’s pecuniary jurisdiction and filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking dismissal of the claim. The Commercial Court, however, found the landlord–tenant relationship admitted, the tenancy duly terminated, and the Rent Control Act inapplicable. It partly decreed the suit, directing the tenant to vacate the premises while leaving issues of arrears and mesne profits for trial.
In appeal, the tenant contended that the valuation adopted by the landlord was arbitrary and inflated, that the Commercial Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, and that the Will relied upon to establish ownership was forged. The landlord countered that the valuation reflected prevailing market rent and that the tenant was estopped from taking inconsistent stands regarding jurisdiction.
The High Court examined the provisions of the Court Fees Act, the Transfer of Property Act, the Indian Evidence Act (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), and Order XII Rule 6 CPC. It upheld the Commercial Court’s findings that the valuation was lawful, the tenancy stood terminated, and the tenant was precluded from disputing the landlord’s title during the tenancy
The Court recorded “by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the rent of the suit shop remained the same as in the year 2011 till the filing of the suit in 2024.” The Court stated that judicial notice could be taken of the escalation of rents in Delhi, referring to precedents such as Sneh Vaish & Anr. v. State Bank of Patiala (2012 SCC OnLine Del 1194) and M.C. Agrawal HUF v. Sahara India (183 (2011) DLT 105).
It was further recorded that “the valuation of Rs. 20,000 per month adopted by the Respondent/Plaintiff was not arbitrary but consistent with prevailing rentals in the locality.” The Court found that even applying a moderate escalation from 2018, when an adjacent shop was rented for Rs. 7,000 per month, the valuation would still exceed Rs. 3,00,000, validating the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction.
On the principle of dominus litis, the Court observed that “the plaintiff is the master of the proceedings and has the prerogative to value the suit and choose the forum unless shown to be arbitrary or mala fide.” The Bench cited Veena Bahl v. Manmohan Bahl (2017) 238 DLT 281 and Subhashini Malik v. S.K. Gandhi (2016 SCC OnLine Del 5058), affirming that the plaintiff’s valuation could not be interfered with absent mala fides.
It observed, “having urged before one forum that the suit exceeded pecuniary jurisdiction, the Appellant is estopped from now contending that the valuation is below Rs. 3,00,000.” The Court found the appellant’s inconsistent stands impermissible.
The Court recorded, “the defendant has admitted that he was inducted as a tenant by the mother of the plaintiff for commercial purposes but denied the plaintiff as owner/landlord while taking a plea that the Will of Smt. Gayatri Devi is forged. The defendant being a tenant cannot challenge the validity of the Will.” Relying on Atyam Veerraju v. Pechetti Venkanna (AIR 1966 SC 629), the Court observed that a tenant in possession cannot deny the landlord’s title.
The Court noted that the Delhi Rent Control Act did not apply as the area of the suit property had not been notified under the Act, citing Mitter Sen Jain v. Shakuntala Devi (2000) 9 SCC 720. It observed, “since Karawal Nagar, including Village Mirpur Turk, has not been notified, the provisions of the DRC Act do not extend to the premises.”
On the issue of termination, the Court affirmed that tenancy had been duly terminated by notice dated January 20, 2024, and stated that even if technical objections were raised, “the filing of the eviction suit under general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant.” It cited Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) (2008) 2 SCC 728, holding that the institution of a suit can constitute valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The Court concluded that “evasive denials and lack of specific rebuttal strengthen the justification for summary disposal under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.” The Court found no evidence of rent payment after 2011, observing that the appellant failed to produce receipts or banking proof of payment.
The Bench stated that “all statutory, equitable, and procedural requirements were satisfied, and the decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was properly passed.”
The Division Bench directed the appellant to “hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondent/Plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of this order.” The Court recorded that the appeal was “unfounded and devoid of merits” and that “the jurisdiction of the learned Commercial Court stands upheld.” The Bench further noted that the next date of hearing earlier fixed in the matter stood cancelled.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mohd. Ikram, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Raghu Nath Dubey, Advocate.
Case Title: Naseem Ahmed v. Deepak Singh
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8924-DB
Case Number: RFA(COMM) 503/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain
