The High Court of Delhi has upheld a trial court’s decree for the restoration of possession of a commercial property in Azad Pur, ruling that the occupant failed to establish a landlord-tenant relationship and must be treated as a “rank trespasser.” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani dismissed the appeal filed by the occupant, holding that internal market committee notices and utility bills are insufficient to prove a protected tenancy under the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958.
Background
The case involves Shop No. C-20, located at Chaudhary Hari Singh, New Subzi Mandi, Azad Pur, New Delhi. The respondent, Mehta Roshan Lal and Sons (the plaintiff), filed a suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction, and damages against the appellant, Ram Gopal Mishra (defendant No. 1).
The trial court, on January 6, 2024, decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, concluding that the appellant had unauthorizedly occupied the premises after a previous tenant vacated in 2011. The appellant challenged this judgment under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), asserting he was a tenant protected by the DRC Act.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant, represented by Mr. Rahul Sharma, contended that he was an oral tenant since 2001 with a monthly rent of ₹2,000. He argued that the suit was barred under Section 50 of the DRC Act. To support his claim, he relied on:
- A 2005 receipt from the Agricultural Product Market Committee (APMC) for payment of a fine.
- Show-cause notices from the APMC addressed to him at the suit property.
- Electricity bills paid via cheque from his bank account.
The respondent, represented by Dr. Amit George, argued that no legal relationship ever existed. They maintained that the appellant and another individual “unauthorisedly entered upon and occupied the suit property, as rank trespassers” on the night of July 21-22, 2011. The respondent further highlighted that they had never withdrawn rent deposited by the appellant in the Rent Controller’s court, as doing so might be construed as an admission of tenancy.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court observed that the appellant failed to produce any formal lease agreement, rent deed, or credible oral evidence to substantiate the creation of a tenancy. Justice Bhambhani noted that the burden of proof lay heavily on the appellant to establish his status as a protected tenant.
Regarding the appellant’s reliance on rent deposit applications, the Court clarified:
“The process u/s 27 DRCA [incorrectly cited as section 21 in trial court records] is a summary process based on the admission of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The court has no jurisdiction under this provision to delve into the issue (sic) the relationship, if the same is disputed.”
The Court further held:
“The issuance of challans or show cause notices by the APMC; or the payment of electricity bills by the appellant, are not evidence of the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the appellant and the respondent.”
Affirming the trial court’s assessment of damages, the Court found the award of ₹40,000 per month as mesne profits to be “fair and reasonable” based on the prevailing rentals of similar properties in the locality.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal (RFA 362/2024), finding no reason to interfere with the trial court’s decree. The Court also disposed of a connected appeal (RFA 298/2024) filed by the respondent for the enhancement of damages, rejecting the same.
The Court concluded that since the appellant was the last person in occupation and had been found to be a trespasser, he was liable for the restoration of possession and payment of mesne profits.
Case Details Block
- Case Title: Ram Gopal Mishra vs. Mehta Roshan Lal and Sons (RFA 362/2024 & RFA 298/2024)
- Case Citation: 2026:DHC:2752
- Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
- Date: April 2, 2026
