Delhi High Court Upholds Landlord’s Eviction Decree; Rejects Tenant’s ₹500 Rent and ₹25 Lakh Security Claims, Awards ₹42,000 Monthly Mesne Profits
Delhi High Court Upholds Tenant’s Eviction; Rejects Claim of ₹500 Monthly Rent and ₹25 Lakh Security Deposit as Unproved
Facts
The respondent-landlord, Kamal Jain, was the registered owner of property at Surajmal Vihar, Delhi, comprising the ground and first floors. According to him, he inducted appellant Jagdev Chawla as a tenant under a Rent Agreement dated 8 November 2019 at a monthly rent of ₹42,000, with ₹84,000 paid as security and ₹42,000 as advance rent for November 2019.
The tenant thereafter defaulted. Following repeated requests, ₹42,000 was transferred in January 2020, but subsequent rent remained unpaid. The landlord eventually served a legal notice dated 14 July 2020, terminating the tenancy and demanding possession.
The tenant admitted the landlord-tenant relationship but disputed the landlord’s agreement. He claimed that the genuine Rent Agreement was dated 22 January 2020, under which the monthly rent was merely ₹500, the tenancy was for three years, and he had paid a refundable security deposit of ₹25 lakh. On this basis, he also claimed protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
The District Judge rejected the tenant’s defence, decreed possession, awarded ₹4.20 lakh as arrears of rent, and granted mesne profits at ₹42,000 per month from November 2020 until possession was handed over. The ₹84,000 security deposit was directed to be adjusted against the arrears.
Jagdev Chawla challenged the decree before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
- Whether the genuine Rent Agreement was the landlord’s agreement dated 8 November 2019 or the tenant’s alleged agreement dated 22 January 2020.
- Whether the monthly rent was ₹42,000 or ₹500.
- Whether the tenant had established payment of a ₹25 lakh security deposit.
- Whether the civil suit was barred by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
- What was the legal effect of the two-year Rent Agreement being notarised but unregistered.
- Whether mesne profits at ₹42,000 per month were justified without independent evidence of prevailing market rent.
Appellant’s Arguments
The tenant argued that the Rent Agreement dated 8 November 2019 relied upon by the landlord was forged and fabricated and that the actual agreement was dated 22 January 2020.
He claimed the latter agreement established rent of ₹500 per month and payment of ₹25 lakh as security. He argued that the Trial Court wrongly prevented him from summoning additional witnesses who could have supported his case.
The appellant also highlighted differences between his signatures on the landlord’s Rent Agreement and his admitted signatures on pleadings and affidavits, arguing that the Court should have compared them under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.
He further relied upon portions of witness testimony concerning discussions about a possible security amount of ₹20–25 lakh and contended that the requisite court fee had not been paid.
Respondent’s Arguments
The landlord maintained that the agreement dated 8 November 2019 was genuine and had been duly proved through his own evidence, his wife’s testimony and the evidence of an attesting witness.
He denied executing the alleged agreement dated 22 January 2020 and denied receiving ₹25 lakh as security.
The landlord’s evidence was also supported by bank transactions showing payment of ₹42,000 in January 2020, exactly corresponding to one month’s contractual rent.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court held that the landlord had successfully proved the 8 November 2019 Rent Agreement.
The agreement bore the signatures of the landlord, tenant and two witnesses. The landlord, his wife and an attesting witness supported its execution in evidence. The mere fact that the landlord’s wife, though present during execution, did not sign the agreement created no suspicion because there is no legal requirement that every person present during execution must sign the document.
Different Signatures Do Not Automatically Establish Forgery
The Court acknowledged that the tenant’s signatures on the Rent Agreement appeared different from those on his pleadings and other documents.
However, this alone was insufficient to establish fabrication. A person may choose to sign differently, and the Rent Agreement had otherwise been established through substantial evidence.
Unregistered Two-Year Lease
The Court noted that the Rent Agreement purported to create a tenancy for two years and therefore required compulsory registration.
Since it was merely notarised, it could not legally operate as an instrument creating a two-year lease.
However, this did not invalidate the landlord-tenant relationship altogether. Based on the parties’ evidence and conduct, the Court treated the tenancy as a month-to-month tenancy, which had subsequently been terminated by the legal notice dated 14 July 2020.
Precedent Analysis
The High Court referred to Bureau of Indian Standards v. Goodwill Theatres Pvt. Ltd., 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 400, while considering the meaning of mesne profits under Section 2(12) CPC.
The Court reiterated that mesne profits concern the benefit derived by the person wrongfully continuing in possession, rather than profits which the landlord might otherwise have earned from sale or other exploitation of the property.
The Court further relied upon M/s Sahara India v. M.C. Agrawal HUF, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3715, which held that where no independent evidence of prevailing market rent is produced, the Court may determine mesne profits based upon the last-paid contractual rent.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found the landlord’s version overwhelmingly more credible.
First, the 8 November 2019 agreement was supported by direct testimony and an attesting witness.
By contrast, the alleged 22 January 2020 agreement suffered from several evidentiary defects. Its original was never produced, and the photographs affixed to the copy appeared superimposed, unlike the clear photographs appearing on the landlord’s agreement.
More importantly, the two persons shown as witnesses to the alleged agreement were never examined by the tenant. Instead, the tenant sought to examine four entirely different persons who each claimed to have contributed ₹1.90 lakh towards security. None of those four persons was an attesting witness to the disputed agreement.
The Court also found serious problems with the claimed ₹25 lakh security deposit. Even accepting the four proposed contributions of ₹1.90 lakh each, they totalled only ₹7.60 lakh. The tenant offered no explanation or evidence regarding the source of the remaining amount.
The Court considered it inherently improbable that a ground-plus-first-floor property in Surajmal Vihar would have been rented for only ₹500 per month.
The bank transactions were also significant. In January 2020, the tenant transferred ₹500, ₹25,000 and ₹16,500, aggregating exactly ₹42,000. He offered no explanation for why that precise amount had been transferred if the contractual rent was supposedly only ₹500.
Accordingly, the Court held that the actual monthly rent was ₹42,000. Once that finding was reached, the tenant’s plea that the civil suit was barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act necessarily failed.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
It upheld the findings that:
- the genuine tenancy commenced under the agreement dated 8 November 2019;
- the contractual monthly rent was ₹42,000, not ₹500;
- the tenant failed to prove payment of ₹25 lakh as security;
- the Delhi Rent Control Act defence was unavailable;
- the unregistered two-year agreement operated as a month-to-month tenancy;
- the landlord was entitled to possession and ₹4.20 lakh in arrears of rent; and
- mesne profits of ₹42,000 per month from November 2020 until delivery of possession were justified because no evidence of a different prevailing market rent had been produced.
Case Details
Case: Jagdev Chawla v. Kamal Jain
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: RFA 675/2025
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: 06 August 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; decree for possession, ₹4.20 lakh rent arrears and mesne profits at ₹42,000 per month until delivery of possession upheld.
