Absence of Documentary Evidence, A Hurdle in Proving Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Delhi High Court

Share:
tribunal notice bharat College Eviction full Bail Rape RTI Colgate National jurisdiction Bail System Bail Daughter POCSO Transactions Bail tribunal Awards section 8 Disability Statement IAS Child Statement Evidence Parole Equality evidence Divorce Rape Rape Trademark evidence marriage gst Property Merit Answer Key Divorce constitutional Harassment ListCross-Examination Termination Law Law Landlord bail Bail evidence Pregnancy University bank gst bail eviction eviction documents circumstances applicationTenant' Officer business 34 Bail Tax sexual Armed Forces investments service legal child rape property smart jurisdiction property jurisdiction power jurisdiction Absence domain violation Allegations property examination evidence criminal family Notices train principle tax bail club judicial education 148 land dv worldwide property olympics bail trademark

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Delhi, led by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur, dismissed a petition involving a contentious landlord-tenant dispute, emphasizing the crucial need for concrete evidence in establishing such relationships. The judgment highlights the challenges faced in applying Order XV-A CPC when a landlord-tenant relationship is denied and lacks supportive documentation.

Brief on the Legal Point

The case hinged on the application of Order XV-A CPC in a scenario where the respondent denies a landlord-tenant relationship. This order typically mandates a tenant to deposit rent and mesne profits during the pendency of an eviction suit. The Court delved into the intricacies of proving a landlord-tenant relationship and the consequent application of Order XV-A.

Facts and Issues

Manjeet Singh Kohli, the petitioner, claimed to be the owner of a property from which he sought eviction of the respondents, along with recovery of unpaid rent and damages. The respondents, on the other hand, denied any such relationship and contested the claim. Kohli’s petition primarily revolved around the enforcement of Order XV-A CPC, given the alleged non-payment of rent since February 2016.

Court’s Assessment

Justice Kaur’s judgment meticulously assessed the application of Order XV-A CPC. It underscored the provision’s objective as a tool to ensure landlords are not deprived of rent or mesne profits due to prolonged litigation. However, the court emphasized that the mere denial of a landlord-tenant relationship does not exempt a tenant from the obligation to deposit rent. Yet, in this case, the absence of substantial evidence from Kohli to establish such a relationship led to the decision in favor of the respondents.

“Denial of title…and denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, simplicitor does not and cannot absolve the lessee/tenant to deposit the due amount of rent/mesne profits for use and occupation,” the court observed. However, it added, “the petitioner has not filed even a single document on record to prima facie show that there had been a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.”

Decision

The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence supporting the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the consequent applicability of Order XV-A CPC.

 Date of Decision: March 20, 2024

Manjeet Singh Kohli vs. Balveen Singh Chadha @ Balveen Singh Chawla & Anr.

Download Judgment

Share: