Tenant Inducted By Landlord Is Estopped From Challenging Landlord’s Title Under Section 122 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a Regular First Appeal filed by a tenant challenging a Trial Court’s judgment and decree for possession, recovery of rent arrears, and mesne profits. Presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, the High Court held that under Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), a tenant who has been inducted into a property by a landlord is legally estopped from subsequently disputing the landlord’s title.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose out of a civil suit (CS DJ No. 555/2019) filed by the landlord, Mohd. Anis (the Plaintiff/Respondent), against the tenant, Ms. Yasmeen (the Defendant/Appellant). The suit sought possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits, and an injunction concerning a 100 sq. yds. property situated at No. 3286, Fourth Floor, Bazar Delhi Gate, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (the “Suit Property”).

According to the Plaintiff, Ms. Yasmeen was inducted as a tenant in the Suit Property on August 1, 2013, for a fixed period of 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs. 16,000, exclusive of water and electricity charges. A Lease Deed was subsequently executed on August 2, 2013. Upon the expiration of the lease by efflux of time on July 1, 2014, the tenant failed to hand over possession, though both parties mutually agreed to an enhanced rent of Rs. 17,000 per month w.e.f. July 1, 2014.

The Plaintiff asserted that the tenant became irregular in paying rent and was in arrears from July 1, 2016, alongside mounting electricity arrears of Rs. 38,880. Consequently, the Plaintiff terminated the tenancy via a Legal Notice dated February 20, 2017.

In her reply dated March 2, 2017, the tenant denied the Plaintiff’s ownership, claiming she had purchased the property from one Mohd. Asad Khan. This led the Plaintiff to file the civil suit. On March 19, 2026, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, directing possession, arrears of rent at Rs. 16,000 per month, and mesne profits at Rs. 17,000 per month with 7% simple interest per annum. The tenant appealed this decree before the Delhi High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Submissions (The Tenant)

The Appellant, Ms. Yasmeen, challenged the decree on several grounds:

1. She argued that the Lease Deed dated August 2, 2013, was a forged and fabricated document, and that her signatures had been obtained by Mohd. Asad Khan on blank papers, which were later misused. Alternatively, she stated that her signatures were obtained on the pretext of installing an electricity connection.
2. She contended that the Trial Court erred in treating her signature admission as an admission of the document’s contents, pointing out that the Plaintiff had failed to examine independent witnesses, the two attesting witnesses to the Lease Deed, or the Notary Public.
3. She claimed that estoppel under Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, could not be applied since the landlord-tenant relationship was itself disputed.
4. She argued that the Plaintiff’s ownership claim—based on an oral gift made on June 1, 2013, followed by a registered Gift Deed on December 27, 2018, executed by the donor Wasiuddin—was invalid and unproved, as neither Wasiuddin nor the attesting witnesses were examined.
5. The Appellant also maintained that her husband, Mohd. Khalil, had advanced substantial sums to Mohd. Asad Khan, and that the property was handed over to her husband under a Mortgage Deed dated May 26, 2015.

The Appellant relied on the following precedents to argue that the burden of proof lay heavily on the Plaintiff:

• Harish Mansukhani v. Ashok Jain, 2009 (109) DRJ (DB)
• Sunil Dang v. R.L. Gupta, CS(OS) 1617/2007
• M/s Gian Chand & Brothers & Anr. v. Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh, (2013) 2 S.C.R 601

Respondent’s Submissions (The Landlord)

In response, the Plaintiff/Respondent’s replication stated that:

1. The Plaintiff was the lawful owner of the property, possessing original ownership documents derived from an oral gift from the erstwhile owner, Wasiuddin, which was later regularized through a registered Gift Deed in 2018.
2. The alleged Mortgage Deed dated May 26, 2015, executed between the tenant’s husband and Mohd. Asad Khan, did not pertain to the Suit Property, but rather to a completely different property: Property No. 534, Second Floor, Chatta Lal Mian, Darya Ganj.
3. Furthermore, this alleged Mortgage Deed was unregistered, unstamped, and legally inadmissible.

Court’s Analysis and Observations

The High Court focused on the admissions made by the tenant during her cross-examination as DW-1. The Court noted that Ms. Yasmeen had made explicit admissions that demolished her defense:

“It is correct that the Plaintiff is the landlord and owner of the Suit property… It is correct that the suit property was in physical possession of the Plaintiff on 01.06.2013. Vol. The Plaintiff had handed over possession of the suit property to me on the said date… It is correct that possession of the suit property was handed over to me by the Plaintiff on 01.08.2013.”

She also admitted that the Lease Deed bore her signatures, and that at the time of execution, her husband, a property dealer, and Mohd. Asad Khan were present.

Rejecting the tenant’s claims of fraud and blank paper signatures, the Court observed:

“It is evident that contradictory explanations had been tendered by the Defendant, in order to explain her admitted signatures on the Lease Deed. Not only this, her aforesaid admissions clearly established that the property had been taken on rent from the Plaintiff, for a period of 11 months.”

Addressing the principle of tenant estoppel, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held:

“The Appellant, having been inducted as a tenant by the Respondent, is estopped from challenging her status as a tenant… The learned District Judge has rightly referred to Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which provides that a tenant who has been inducted into a property by a landlord is estopped from subsequently challenging the title of the landlord.”

On the defense concerning the Mortgage Deed, the High Court analyzed the document and found it wholly irrelevant to the Suit Property:

“First and foremost, from the bare perusal of the said document, it emerges that the same pertained to the Second Floor without terrace rights of Property bearing No. 534, Chatta Lal Mian, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, admeasuring 70 sq. yards, and was not in respect of the Suit Property.”

The Court added that the Mortgage Deed was legally untenable as it was unregistered, violating Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Decision

Upholding the findings of the Trial Court, the High Court concluded that the landlord-tenant relationship was duly proved. The Court confirmed that the tenant was liable for arrears of rent at Rs. 16,000 per month from July 1, 2016, to March 16, 2017, and mesne profits at Rs. 17,000 per month from March 17, 2017, alongside 7% simple interest per annum.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Regular First Appeal along with all pending applications.

Case Details

• Case Title: Ms. Yasmeen v. Mohd Anis
• Case No.: RFA 511/2026, CM APPL. 33202/2026, CM APPL. 33203/2026, CM APPL. 33204/2026
• Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
• Date: 23rd May, 2026