ANURADHA TEWARI THROUGH HER SPA vs BAL KISHAN

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 13.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on:17.11.2025 + FAO 332/2023 ANURADHA TEWARI THROUGH HER SPA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ninad Dogra and Ms. Komal Gupta, Advocates. versus BAL KISHAN .....Respondent Through: Ms. Neena Malhotra and Mr. Shubham, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA JUDGMENT CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J. 1. The present appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC), has been filed for setting aside Annexure P-1, i.e., Order dated 15.07.2022 in CS 784/2019, whereby the appellant/plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC was dismissed on the ground that the Signature Not Verified FAO 332/2023 Page 1 of 9 Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Date:17.11.2025 17:41:01 respondent had disputed the landlord-tenant relationship along with the fact that no lease agreement had been filed on record. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the averments of the appellant/plaintiff, are as follows:- The appellant/plaintiff, on 05.05.2015, purchased the suit property bearing Flat No. 55C, DDA Janta flats, Pandav Nagar, Patel Nagar, New Delhi - 110008 (suit property), with roof rights by way of a registered sale deed. 2.1. As per the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property was leased to the respondent/defendant for five years commencing from 01.05.2015 at a monthly rent of ₹25,000, and, as per a mutual agreement, the rent was enhanced by 15% after every 24 months. The rent was enhanced twice in the months of May and July 2019, and the same was accepted and deposited by the respondent/defendant directly in the bank account of the appellant with two different banks. It is further submitted that when the Signature Not Verified FAO 332/2023 Page 2 of 9 Sig