The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a tenant challenging a decree for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits, holding that his own admissions regarding the commencement of tenancy, rent payable and execution of successive rent agreements sufficiently supported the landlords’ case. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the trial court’s findings that the tenant had failed to establish his claim of having paid ₹10 lakh as a mortgage amount in return for a reduced monthly payment of ₹2,900.
The appeal arose from a suit filed by Madhu Chawla and Sanjay Chawla against Siddhanth Mendiratta in relation to a shop measuring 238.38 square feet. The landlords claimed that the shop had initially been let out in 2014 at ₹25,500 per month, excluding water and electricity charges. According to them, the tenancy was extended from time to time and a fresh rent agreement was executed on August 22, 2018.
After the tenancy allegedly expired on July 31, 2019, the landlords issued a legal notice dated September 7, 2019 terminating the tenancy and seeking vacant possession along with arrears of rent. They subsequently instituted proceedings seeking possession, ₹87,000 as arrears of rent and mesne profits or damages for continued occupation.
Tenant Claimed ₹10 Lakh Mortgage Arrangement
The tenant disputed the landlords’ version and claimed that the actual monthly payment was ₹2,900. He asserted that ₹10 lakh had been paid towards a mortgage arrangement concerning the shop between November 2016 and March 2017, following which the monthly amount was fixed at ₹2,900. He also claimed that the suit was barred by the Delhi Rent Control Act.
He further alleged that the landlords had been pressuring him to vacate the premises without refunding the ₹10 lakh amount and denied being in arrears of rent.
The District Judge, however, found that the tenant had admitted being in possession as a tenant since 2014. The 2014 lease agreement reflected a monthly rent of ₹25,500. The trial court also held that the alleged payment of ₹10 lakh had not been proved. It consequently granted arrears of rent and mesne profits and decreed the suit.
Challenge To Rent Agreement
Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the trial court had wrongly relied on the rent agreement dated August 22, 2018 despite his denial of its execution and signatures.
He contended that merely identifying the signature of the notary on the document could not establish its execution by him. Relying on Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, he argued that the landlords were required to independently prove that the signatures attributed to him were genuine.
The appellant also questioned the reliability of the notary’s evidence, pointing to allegedly contradictory certificates concerning notarisation of the agreement. He further argued that the rent agreement, if treated as creating a five-year tenancy, required registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908.
He separately challenged the award of mesne profits with a 15% enhancement every three years, arguing that there was no evidence regarding the market rental value of the premises.
Tenant’s Admissions Were Material Evidence
The High Court examined the evidence and noted that the appellant had admitted two important facts: that he had been in possession of the property since 2014 and that he was a tenant.
The Court further noted that during cross-examination, the appellant himself suggested that the first agreement dated April 24, 2014 had been executed between the parties.
More significantly, the tenant admitted in his cross-examination that he had taken the premises on rent in 2014 at ₹25,500 per month, including maintenance charges. He also admitted that the rent agreement was for 11 months and contemplated an annual increase of 10%. He acknowledged that further rent agreements were executed in 2015, 2017 and 2018.
The High Court observed:
“There could be no better evidence than the admissions of the Defendant himself.”
The Court also noted that although the appellant disputed the August 22, 2018 rent agreement and alleged that his signatures had been forged, he had himself admitted that an agreement was executed in 2018 and had not produced any different rent agreement for that period.
The evidence of the appellant’s mother also went against the mortgage claim. She admitted during cross-examination that she had not paid any money towards the alleged transaction. The High Court found that the trial court had comprehensively considered the defence evidence before concluding that payment of ₹10 lakh had not been proved.
Mesne Profits Upheld
On mesne profits, the High Court referred to M/s Sahara India v. M.C. Agrawal HUF, where it had held that mesne profits payable by an erstwhile tenant continuing in occupation after termination of tenancy may be determined with reference to the rent that the premises could fetch during the period of illegal occupation.
The Court noted that where evidence regarding rents of comparable premises is unavailable, courts may take judicial notice of rental increases in urban areas and grant an appropriate enhancement over the contractual rent. It also referred to M/s Priya Exhibitors (P) Ltd. v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, where mesne profits were assessed by enhancing the contractual rent by 15% for subsequent years of continued occupation.
In the present case, the High Court found that the trial court had relied on the April 24, 2014 agreement, under which the admitted rent was ₹25,500 per month. Mesne profits and user and occupation charges were granted at the same base rent, with a 15% increase after every three years of unauthorised occupation until possession was handed over.
Finding no merit in the challenge, the High Court dismissed the appeal and disposed of the pending applications.
Case Title: Siddhanth Mendiratta v. Madhu Chawla & Anr.
Case No.: RFA 1008/2026, CM APPL. 62482/2026, CM APPL. 62483/2026
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: September 28, 2026
