Dismissed

Kamal Jain v. Surender Kumar Jain & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Sept 2026CM(M)/2035/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging a trial court order directing the petitioner-tenant to pay monthly occupation charges of Rs. 25,000 from 15.09.2024. The petitioner had been inducted as a tenant in April 2022 and later entered into an agreement to sell the premises, paying Rs. 57 lakhs. However, the sale deed was never executed. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the petitioner's status remained that of a tenant, making him liable for occupation charges, and found no ground for interference under Article 227.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kamal Jain Vs Surender Kumar Jain & Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~64

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010438832026

¶4

- CM(M) 2035/2026, CM APPL. 63052/2026 & CM APPL. 63053/2026

¶5

KAMAL JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Jain and Mr. Ashish Mavi, Advs. versus SURENDER KUMAR JAIN & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ravin Rao, Mr. Pallav Gupta, Mr. Akshit Sawal, Mr. Ayan Sharma, Mr. Nikhil Rana, Mr. Ayush Kumar and Ms. Palak Jerath, Advs.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 16.09.2026

¶10

Through the present petition, the petitioner is impugning the order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the learned District Judge-05 (West), Tiz Hazari Court, Delhi, in Civ DJ No. 1034/2024 titled as „Surender Kumar Jain & Anr. v. Kamal Jain‟ , whereby the learned Trial Court allowed respondents‟ application, filed under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) , and directed the petitioner to pay user and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the respondents.

¶11

Succinctly put, the brief facts concerning the present petition are that the respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit for possession, permanent injunction and recovery of arrears of rent/mesne profits, being Civ. DJ 1034/2024, against the petitioner/defendant, alleging wrongful use and occupation of their tenanted premises i.e., MIG Flat, bearing No. A-32

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:57:19

¶14

Type-A, Ground floor, Ashoka Enclave, Rohtak Road, Peeragarhi, New Delhi.

¶15

On 23.05.2025, while deciding an interim application filed by the respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, seeking a direction restraining the petitioner from parting with the possession of the tenanted premises during the pendency of their suit, the learned Trial Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner remained in possession of the tenanted premises as of that date. Upon consideration of the said submission, the learned Trial Court restrained the petitioner from parting with possession of the tenanted premises till the next date of hearing.

¶16

In the interregnum , respondents preferred another application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, for issuance of directions to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of the rent/occupation charges amounting to Rs. 5,40,000/- for the period from August 2022 till October 2022, and to further deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per month before the learned Trial Court, on or before 7th day of each month, till final disposal of the suit.

¶17

The said application was opposed, and after hearing both parties, came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.07.2026. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 02.07.2026 is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶18

“8. A bare reading of the documents of the parties and the pleadings, it is noted that the title of plaintiffs over the tenanted premises is not disputed by the defendant. The parties are also not at dispute as regards the fact that defendant was inducted as a tenant in the given premises in April, 2022 at a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. Further, the parties also admitted that agreement to sell was executed between them regarding the sale of

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:57:19

¶21

tenanted premises by plaintiffs in favour of the defendant subject to payment of sale consideration of Rs.1.07 crores out of which defendant paid an amount of Rs.57,000,000/- by March, 2024.

¶22

It is observed that there has been no dispute between the parties regarding the payment of monthly rent of the tenanted premises till the execution of agreement to sell and the due date of payment of the outstanding amount i.e. 15.05.2024. The dispute was first given a legal colour by plaintiffs by issuing a legal notice dated 08.06.2024 to the defendant asking him to come forward and pay the remaining sale consideration. Later, another legal notice dated 13.09.2024 was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant thereby terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to vacate the tenanted premises and pay the outstanding rent @ Rs.20,000/- till April, 2024 and @ Rs.25,000/- w.e.f May, 2024. The receipt of both the legal notices is duly admitted by the defendant who responded to said notices by a written reply.

¶23

It is observed that defendant was handed over the possession of the premises as a tenant and he continued in the premises in the said capacity despite there being an agreement to sell between the parties. Since the final sale documents/sale deed of the tenanted premises could not be executed in favour of the defendant, the status of defendant in respect of the tenanted premises remained unaltered and never attained the status of an owner. In such circumstances where defendant has been continuing as a tenant (subject to any oral understanding between the parties as pleaded by the defendant and subject to trial on the said aspect), he is liable to pay the monthly rent/occupation charges of the tenanted premises to the plaintiffs. It is observed that the tenancy was terminated w.e.f the date of service of legal notice dated 13.09.2024. For deciding the present application, the date of service is deemed to be 15.09.2024. As such, defendant is liable to pay monthly rent/occupation charges @ Rs.25,000/per month against the occupation of tenanted premises to the plaintiff w.e.f 15.09.2024 till 15.07.2026. The defendant shall also be liable to pay future monthly rent/occupation charges @ Rs.25,000/- per month to the plaintiffs w.e.f 15.07.2026 till further orders/disposal of present suit, whichever is earlier.

¶24

The arrears of rent till 15.07.2026 and the rent of tenanted premises till 15.09.2026 be paid on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 23.09.2026.

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:57:19

¶27

The application is allowed and disposed of.

¶28

Put up for further proceedings on 23.09.2026.”

¶29

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was originally inducted as a tenant in respondents‟ premises, but around January 2024 the parties entered into an agreement to sell the entire tenanted premises for sale consideration of Rs. 1,07,00,000/-, pursuant to which the petitioner paid Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money, and further paid Rs. 5,00,000/- on 28.02.2024, and Rs. 47,00,000/- on 01.03.2024, at respondents‟ request. He submits that despite the substantial payment, the respondents‟ attempted to create third-party interest in the property by bringing prospective third-party purchasers to the view the tenanted premises on 06.04.2024, which constrained the petitioner to institute a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.01.2024.

¶30

On this basis, the learned counsel submits hat the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 02.07.2026 erroneously allowed respondents‟ application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 115 CPC, thereby granting monetary relief to the respondents at an interim stage without any adjudication on the merits of the underlying dispute. The learned counsel, however, does not dispute the petitioner‟s initial status as a tenant, or the non-execution of the agreement to sell dated 15.01.2024 entered into between the parties. He further admits that the petitioner continues to remain in possession of the tenanted premises as on date.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and after perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:57:19

¶34

the respondents‟ premises in April 2022 at a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-, and that a subsequent agreement to sell dated 15.01.2024 between the parties, for sale a consideration of Rs. 1,07,00,000/- of which the petitioner had paid Rs. 57,00,000/- to the respondents by March 2024. It is further admitted that the petitioner continues to be in possession of the tenanted premises.

¶35

This Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.07.2026 correctly held that the said agreement to sell dated 15.01.2024 was ultimately never executed into a conveyance, and consequently petitioner‟s status continued to be that of a tenant, and did not convert into ownership of the tenanted premises. Accordingly, the petitioner was held liable to pay monthly rent/occupation charges at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondents with effect from 15.09.2024 and till disposal of the suit.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no infirmity in the learned Trial Court‟s order dated 02.07.2026, warranting interference from this Court under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.

¶37

Hence, the present petition, along with pending application(s), if any stands dismissed.

¶38

Needless to clarify, the aforesaid observations are confined to the present petition, and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶39

SEPTEMBER 16, 2026/ ar/os

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:57:19

Kamal Jain v. Surender Kumar Jain & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kamal Jain v. Surender Kumar Jain & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akram Khan Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

N R Wardrobe Fuss Pvt. Ltd. Vs Velocity Software Solutions Private Limited

Smt. Bhavana Vs Sh. Balraj

Ravinderbir Singh Sawhney and Anr. Vs Amarsons Electricals

Sonu @ Bali & Anr. Vs Ankit Sharma

Bmw India Private Limited Vs R. Sambath Kumar & Anr.

Seeraj Singh Tulsi Vs Pushpinder Singh Tulsi

Rishi Raj Sharma Vs Ramesh Lata