Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Barred if Rent Exceeds DRC Act Threshold: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has reinforced the principle that the protection of rent control legislation cannot be invoked by tenants without substantiating the rate of rent, ruling that an adverse inference must be drawn against parties who fail to lead evidence or cross-examine the landlord. The decision clarifies that the mere assertion of a low rent figure is insufficient to oust the jurisdiction of civil courts when the landlord provides unrebutted evidence of rent exceeding the statutory limit.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna heard the Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal challenged a Trial Court decree for possession and mesne profits, with the Appellants primarily contending that the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Court's Rationale on Rent Enhancement and Adverse Inference

The court focused on whether the rent had been enhanced from the initial Rs. 660/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. While the Appellants argued that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 precluded oral evidence to vary the written agreement of 1981, the Court noted that the Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the enhancement in 2016 remained unchallenged. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box to state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, the presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Defendants who neither challenged the testimony of the Plaintiff nor adduced any evidence in regard to the rate of rent."

Applying the principles from Vidhyadbar v. Manik Rao ( "(1999) 3 SCC 573": 1999 CaseBase(SC) 205), the Court held that since the Defendants failed to cross-examine the Plaintiff or lead their own evidence, the rent of Rs. 15,000/- stood proved. Consequently, the premises fell outside the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as the rent exceeded the Rs. 3,500/- threshold.

Termination of Tenancy and Mesne Profits

Regarding the validity of the tenancy termination, the Court relied on M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) to hold that the institution of the suit itself acts as a notice to quit. The Court further noted that the Defendants, as legal heirs, had continued the tenancy after their father's death but failed to pay rent since November 2016.

The Court has following directions:

"The learned District Judge vide Impugned Judgment decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff for possession and restrained the Defendants from creating third party rights in the Suit Property. Further, the arrears of rent from November 2016 till termination of tenancy vide Legal Notice dated 13.08.2018 in the sum of Rs.3,30,000/- was awarded in addition to Mesne Profits commencing from September 2018 with a 15% increase annually till the handing over of the possession was granted to the Plaintiff."

Background

The dispute concerned an LIG Flat in Masjid Moth, New Delhi, allotted to the Respondent in 1980 and licensed to the Appellants' father in 1981 at Rs. 660/- per month. The Respondent claimed that after the father's death, the tenancy continued with the legal heirs (Appellants) and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- by October 2016. The Appellants stopped paying rent in November 2016 and allegedly transferred the electricity connection without consent.

Before the Trial Court, the Appellants argued the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming the rent never exceeded Rs. 660/-. However, they failed to cross-examine the Respondent or lead any evidence. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the landlord. In appeal, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's findings, noting that the Appellants failed to prove the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and failed to rebut the landlord's evidence of rent enhancement. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession, arrears, and mesne profits was upheld.

Case Details:
Case No.: RFA 127/2025, CM APPL. 8454/2025 & CM APPL. 30556/2025
Case Title: MR.RUFFEN JOSEPH & ANR. v. SUKHBIR SINGH
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Simran Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Vandana Sachdeva and Ms. Vidushi Sah, Advocates.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 6583