CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

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.

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.

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 partiThe 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.

Latest Legal News