Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title During Tenancy Even On Allegations Of Forged Ownership: Delhi High Court
The High Court observed that mere allegations of forgery without credible proof or challenge from other heirs do not raise a triable issue sufficient to defeat eviction proceedings.
The Delhi High Court, Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain
The Delhi High Court has held that tenants cannot dispute the title of the landlord during the continuance of tenancy and that even allegations of forgery or fabrication of ownership documents cannot create a triable issue unless supported by substantive evidence.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed against a decree passed by the Commercial Court, directing the appellant to hand over possession of a shop in Delhi, who claimed ownership under a Will executed by his late mother.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, while deciding the matter, observed that “a tenant, once inducted into possession, is precluded from denying the landlord’s title during the continuance of tenancy.” The Bench further clarified that “even where allegations of forgery are raised, the absence of credible evidence or challenge from other legal heirs negates the existence of a triable issue.”
Advocate Mohd Ikram represented the appellant, while Advocate Raghu Nath Dubey appeared for the respondent.
Background
The dispute arose over a commercial shop that the appellant had taken on rent from the respondent’s mother for business purposes. Following her demise, the respondent claimed ownership of the premises under a Will and issued a notice terminating the tenancy.
The respondent subsequently filed a suit before the Commercial Court seeking possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits. The Commercial Court, after taking note of the admitted landlord-tenant relationship and the termination notice, decreed possession under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Aggrieved by this decision, the tenant filed an appeal contending that the Will relied upon by the respondent was forged, that the valuation of the property was inflated to confer jurisdiction on the Commercial Court, and that the decree was wrongly passed on alleged admissions.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court, at the outset, noted that the primary issues before it concerned whether the Commercial Court had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction and whether the decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was justified.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the High Court found that the valuation adopted by the respondent was not arbitrary, observing that courts may take judicial notice of the rise in market rents in metropolitan areas. It was held that the plaintiff, as dominus litis, had the right to value the suit reasonably and to choose the forum unless such valuation was shown to be mala fide.
Concerning the decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Bench reiterated that such a decree can be passed when three conditions are fulfilled, namely, the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, tenancy not protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and valid termination of tenancy. All these conditions, the Bench held, were satisfied in the present case.
Addressing the plea of forgery, the Court held that the tenant could not dispute the landlord’s title while continuing in possession, stating that “in the absence of any cogent or contemporaneous evidence challenging the execution or validity of the Will, the Commercial Court was justified in treating the document as having persuasive evidentiary value.”
The Bench also cited Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which codifies the principle of tenant estoppel, holding that a tenant is barred from disputing the landlord’s ownership during the tenancy.
It additionally upheld the Commercial Court’s finding that the tenancy was lawfully terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, observing that even the filing of an eviction suit constitutes valid notice to quit, as recognised in Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), (2008).
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court upheld the findings of the Commercial Court, affirming that the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, the tenancy was duly terminated, and the property fell outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The Court accordingly dismissed the tenant’s appeal as devoid of merit and directed him to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within three months.
Cause Title: Naseem Ahmed v. Deepak Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8924-DB)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocate Mohd. Ikram
Respondent: Advocate Raghu Nath Dubey