Delhi HC Affirms Eviction As Tenant Fails To Prove Cash Sale Agreement

A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora heard an appeal challenging a District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi judgment decreeing eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits in a suit instituted by the landlord for recovery of possession. The appellants contested the eviction primarily on the ground that they were prospective purchasers who had paid Rs. 32 lakh towards an agreement to sell (ATS) and therefore claimed protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and held that the Trial Court correctly found the three jurisdictional facts for eviction — existence of landlord-tenant relationship, rent exceeding Rs. 3,500 per month, and valid termination of tenancy — and therefore properly passed the decree of eviction. The Court found that the appellants had admitted the tenancy in pleadings and in reply to the landlord’s legal notice, had proved only Rs. 8 lakh by bank transfers, and had failed to substantiate the alleged Rs. 24 lakh paid in cash. The Court emphasized that the appellants did not seek timely expert evidence and that belated applications for handwriting or other expert proof had been rightly refused. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, the three [3] jurisdictional facts for passing the decree of eviction in a case of landlord-tenant stood proved in the facts of this case and the Trial Court correctly passed the decree of eviction. The Appellants have not disputed the computation of the arrears and mesne profits. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the Trial Court has awarded mesne profits at the lowest rate of Rs. 8,000/- by relying upon the admissions in the testimony of DW-2 and, therefore, the said assessment of mesne profits also does not require any interference. The grant of enhancement at 15% per year, as well as interest at 9% per annum, is also reasonable that this is a commercial property and used for commercial purposes by the Appellants. In these facts, there is no error in the order of the Trial Court in the appreciation of the evidence which was before it. We, therefore, find no ground made out for interference in this appeal.”

Background
The dispute arose from the occupation of the ground floor of the property at R.A.-28, Gali No. 11/12, Chetan Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi, which the respondent-owner let to Appellant No.1 from December 2013 for factory use. The parties executed periodic rent agreements, two of which, dated 25.02.2015 and 25.10.2016, were relied upon by the landlord; the appellants admitted tenancy but later asserted an ATS dated and supported by various documents and a bayana receipt, claiming payments totalling Rs. 32,00,000 (Rs. 8,00,000 by bank transfer and Rs. 24,00,000 in cash). The landlord denied receipt of cash payments and served a legal notice dated 15.02.2019 terminating the tenancy; the appellants replied on 02.03.2019 admitting the landlord-tenant relationship but disputing arrears.

The Trial Court framed issues including entitlement to possession, assessment of mesne profits, and the effect of a rent agreement dated 07.04.2015. On evidence, the Trial Court accepted the landlord’s case: it held termination proved, assessed mesne profits at Rs. 8,000 per month from March 2019 with 15% annual enhancement and 9% interest, allowed adjustment of Rs. 8,00,000 received by bank transfer against the decree, and declined to accept the unproven cash payments or unregistered ATS as creating protective rights under Section 53A. The appellants repeatedly offered to vacate if Rs. 32 lakh were refunded; the written statement contained the offer that “If Plaintiff will pay sum of Rs. 32 lacs with interest to Defendant No. 2 then Defendant No. 1 will vacate the tenanted property…”.

On appeal, the High Court endorsed the Trial Court’s findings that the appellants failed to prove the cash payments and that the disputed documents were not proved by independent corroboration or expert evidence. The Court noted reliance on Suraj Lamp & Industries and a Coordinate Bench decision in Jagdambey Builders v. JS Vohra to hold that an unregistered ATS could not confer the protection of Section 53A post-amendment where registration was required. The Court observed that no counterclaim for refund of the alleged payments or for specific performance was filed by the appellants and that the Trial Court had nonetheless examined the defence and declined relief in the absence of cogent evidence. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded; pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details:
Case No.: RFA(COMM) 678/2025 CM APPL. 76289/2025
Case Title: JAI NATH YADAV & ANR. versus SOMNATH YADAV @ SHOBH NATH YADAV & ANR.
Appearances:
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Pankaj Srivastav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raghunath Dubey, Adv.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 150