Tenants Claim Rent Remained ₹660 Since 1981 but Never Cross-Examine Landlord; Delhi High Court Accepts ₹15,000 Rent, Upholds Eviction and Mesne Profits
Family Lives in Rented House for Over 37 Years, Claims ₹660 Rent; Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction After Finding Rent Was ₹15,000
Facts
The dispute concerned Property No. 33A, LIG Flats, Masjid Moth-I, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, allotted by the Delhi Development Authority to Sukhbir Singh in 1980.
On 5 February 1981, the property was let out to P.A. Joseph for residential purposes at ₹660 per month, excluding electricity and water charges, initially for 11 months. According to the landlord, the arrangement was extended from time to time and the rent was periodically enhanced by mutual understanding.
After P.A. Joseph’s death, his legal heirs continued occupying the premises.
The landlord claimed that by October 2016, the rent had been enhanced to ₹15,000 per month, but the tenants stopped paying rent from November 2016.
On 13 August 2018, the landlord issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy and requiring the occupants to vacate within 15 days.
The tenants disputed the enhancement and asserted that rent had always remained ₹660 per month. On that basis, they claimed protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, arguing that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction.
The Trial Court decreed:
- possession;
- permanent injunction against creation of third-party rights;
- ₹3,30,000 as arrears of rent; and
- mesne profits from September 2018 with annual enhancement.
The tenants appealed to the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The High Court identified three essential questions:
1. Whether the landlord-tenant relationship stood established.
2. Whether the rent remained ₹660 per month or had been enhanced to ₹15,000, thereby taking the tenancy outside the relevant monetary protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
3. Whether the tenancy had been validly terminated.
Appellants’ Arguments
The tenants relied heavily upon the original written agreement dated 5 February 1981, which admittedly recorded rent at ₹660 per month.
They argued that there was no documentary evidence proving enhancement to ₹15,000.
According to them, Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prevented oral evidence from being used to contradict or vary the terms of the written tenancy agreement.
They further contended that under Section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, a written notice was required before any lawful increase in rent.
Since no such notice had been proved, the alleged increase could not legally take effect.
Their case was therefore that the rent remained ₹660, the tenancy remained protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act and the Civil Court could not order eviction.
Respondent’s Arguments
The landlord maintained that ₹660 was merely the original rent fixed in 1981.
The tenancy continued for decades and the rent was periodically increased by mutual agreement, eventually reaching ₹15,000 per month in October 2016.
Crucially, the landlord entered the witness box and specifically testified to this enhancement.
The tenants:
did not cross-examine him + did not seek his recall + did not enter the witness box + did not lead any defence evidence.
The landlord additionally argued that the tenants had failed to prove that the Delhi Rent Control Act had been extended to the locality through the necessary notification.
Analysis of the Law
Landlord-Tenant Relationship Was Admitted
The High Court found no genuine dispute regarding the character of possession.
P.A. Joseph had admittedly entered the property under the 1981 tenancy arrangement.
His sons themselves claimed their right to continue occupying the property through their deceased father.
The Court therefore held that the landlord-tenant relationship stood established.
₹660 or ₹15,000? — The Decisive Evidentiary Issue
The central dispute concerned the rent.
The landlord entered the witness box and testified that the rent last paid in October 2016 was ₹15,000 per month.
That evidence remained completely unrebutted and unchallenged.
The tenants never cross-examined him on the enhancement.
They also did not seek his recall for cross-examination and did not produce any evidence establishing their competing assertion that rent continued to be ₹660.
Accordingly, the Court drew an adverse inference against the tenants.
The High Court consequently upheld the finding that the rent stood at:
₹15,000 per month from October 2016
and therefore the bar under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act did not apply.
What About the Written 1981 Agreement?
The tenants’ argument was that Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act prevented oral evidence from varying the ₹660 rent recorded in the written agreement.
However, the Court treated the 1981 agreement as establishing the initial rent, not as permanently freezing the rent for all future extensions of the tenancy.
The landlord’s case was that the rent had subsequently been periodically enhanced by mutual understanding.
Since his evidence regarding the later ₹15,000 rate went completely unchallenged, the Court accepted it.
This distinction is important: the judgment should not be read as laying down that oral testimony can generally override a subsisting written rent agreement. The decision turned materially on the subsequent continuation of the tenancy and the defendants’ complete failure to challenge the landlord’s evidence.
Failure to Cross-Examine Can Be Fatal
The Court relied upon Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, where the Supreme Court observed that when a party does not enter the witness box to state its own case on oath and submit itself to cross-examination, an adverse presumption may arise against that party.
Here, the tenants did even less: they neither cross-examined the landlord nor produced their own evidence.
Their bare assertion of ₹660 rent was therefore insufficient to displace the landlord’s sworn testimony of ₹15,000.
Precedent Analysis
Neeraj Aggarwal v. Ravinder Parkash Punj
The Delhi High Court relied upon this decision for the principle that where no written agreement governs the current rate of rent, the Court may consider surrounding circumstances and credible evidence.
Once the party asserting the higher rent discharges the initial burden, the onus shifts to the other side to establish the lower figure.
A mere unsupported assertion is insufficient.
Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao
Relied upon for drawing an adverse inference where a party fails to enter the witness box and submit its version to cross-examination.
Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF)
The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision for another significant proposition:
Even in the absence of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, institution of an eviction suit under the general law itself can constitute notice to quit.
Termination of Tenancy
In any event, the landlord had actually issued a termination notice dated 13 August 2018.
His evidence concerning service and termination again remained unrebutted.
The High Court therefore found no infirmity in the conclusion that the tenancy had been validly terminated.
Arrears of ₹3.30 Lakh Upheld
Once ₹15,000 was accepted as the monthly rent, the High Court upheld the award of:
₹3,30,000
towards rent arrears from November 2016 until termination of tenancy pursuant to the August 2018 notice.
Mesne Profits With 15% Annual Increase
The High Court also upheld mesne profits commencing from September 2018.
The Trial Court had provided for a 15% annual increase, calculated successively until possession of the premises is handed back to the landlord.
That direction was affirmed in appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The case ultimately turned less on the age of the tenancy and more on the failure to contest evidence.
The tenants had a specific defence:
rent never increased beyond ₹660.
But they did not prove it.
Once the landlord testified that the rent had reached ₹15,000 by October 2016, the tenants needed to challenge that testimony through cross-examination and/or affirmative evidence.
They did neither.
Consequently, the original ₹660 figure in the 1981 agreement could not, by itself, defeat the unchallenged evidence regarding subsequent enhancement.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the tenants’ appeal and upheld the Trial Court decree.
The Court affirmed:
Possession: in favour of the landlord.
Rent: ₹15,000 per month from October 2016.
Arrears: ₹3,30,000.
Mesne profits: from September 2018 with 15% annual enhancement until possession is handed over.
Permanent injunction: tenants restrained from creating third-party rights in the property.
The Court concluded that the Trial Court judgment was well reasoned and required no interference.
Case Details
Case: Ruffen Joseph & Anr. v. Sukhbir Singh
Court: Delhi High Court
Case No.: RFA 127/2025 with CM APPL. 8454/2025 & 30556/2025
CNR: DLHC010061532025
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Reserved: 6 August 2026
Pronounced: 18 September 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; eviction/possession decree, ₹3.30 lakh arrears, permanent injunction and mesne profits with 15% annual enhancement upheld.
