First appeals under Section 96 CPC re-open facts as well as law, but they are won and lost on the trial record. A Delhi High Court judgment of 28 September 2026 shows how a tenant’s case collapsed under his own cross-examination admissions — and restates the practical rule Delhi courts apply for compensating a landlord kept out of commercial premises: market-linked mesne profits with periodic escalation.
The litigation story
The appellant was inducted as a tenant of a commercial shop in 2014 at Rs. 25,500 per month. A fresh rent agreement was allegedly executed in 2018; the tenancy expired on 31 July 2019; a termination notice went out on 7 September 2019. The tenant stayed put, setting up a startling defence: that he had advanced Rs. 10,00,000 by way of “mortgage” and that the real rent was Rs. 2,900 per month. The trial court decreed possession, arrears and mesne profits. The tenant appealed under Section 96 read with Order XLI CPC.
How the appeal was decided
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the RFA on 28 September 2026. The reasoning is a study in the weight of admissions:
The landlord’s toolkit in such suits
| Element | Provision / principle | Role in this case |
|---|---|---|
| Termination of tenancy | Section 106, Transfer of Property Act | Notice of 07.09.2019 ended the expired tenancy |
| Possession and arrears | Suit for recovery of possession with rent claims | Decreed on the proved tenancy at Rs. 25,500 |
| Mesne profits | Section 2(12) CPC; judicial notice of rent trends | Rs. 25,500 monthly with 15%/3-year escalation |
| Registration bar | Section 17, Registration Act | Defeated the unregistered “mortgage” defence |
For occupants, the case is a warning about improvised defences: a claim of a large cash “mortgage”, unsupported by documents and contradicted by one’s own rent history, damages credibility across the entire case — including on quantum.
First-appeal practice pointers
An RFA re-hears facts, but appellate courts rarely disturb findings anchored in the appellant’s own admissions. Before filing, audit the cross-examination record honestly; if the admissions are fatal, negotiated time to vacate is often worth more than an appeal. Landlords, for their part, should always claim mesne profits with escalation — Delhi courts grant it, and it compounds meaningfully over long litigation.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Possession and tenancy disputes turn on their documents and depositions; parties should obtain advice on their own matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the suit about?
Joint owners let a commercial shop in 2014 at Rs. 25,500 per month. After the tenancy expired in July 2019 and a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act followed, the tenant refused to vacate, claiming he had paid Rs. 10,00,000 as a “mortgage” and that rent was only Rs. 2,900 per month. The owners sued for possession, arrears and mesne profits and succeeded.
Why did the tenant’s appeal fail?
His own admissions in cross-examination — including suggestions put to the plaintiffs’ witnesses — accepted the 2014 induction at Rs. 25,500 per month and the execution of successive rent agreements. The mortgage claim of Rs. 10 lakh was unsupported by any substantive evidence, and an unregistered arrangement could not, in law, create the interest asserted.
How were mesne profits computed?
At Rs. 25,500 per month with a 15% enhancement every three years — an approach grounded in Delhi High Court precedent that takes judicial notice of the steady rise in urban commercial rents.
What is the significance of the legal notice?
For unregistered or expired tenancies, a notice under Section 106 TPA terminates the tenancy and fixes the date from which continued occupation becomes unauthorised — the hinge on which arrears end and mesne profits begin.