Delhi High Court on Interlocutory Rent Payment: Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the trial court’s order rejecting an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC seeking a direction for the deposit of monthly rent and arrears. The Court held that the appellant/plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie landlord–tenant relationship, and substantial disputes regarding the nature of the property transaction and payments rendered the application untenable at the interlocutory stage.

Background:

1. The appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit property (Flat No. 55C, DDA Janta Flats, Pandav Nagar, Delhi) on 05.05.2015 and alleged that it was leased to the respondent/defendant for five years at ₹25,000/month, with periodic rent enhancements.
2. The respondent/defendant disputed the tenancy, claiming that payments made were in repayment of a ₹22,00,000 loan, and alleged that the sale deed was forged and executed under misrepresentation.
3. The appellant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC for interim deposit of rent and arrears, which the trial court dismissed, noting that no lease deed or written acknowledgment was produced and that the respondent denied the landlord–tenant relationship.

Court’s Observations:

1. Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC applies only where the defendant admits liability to pay.
2. In the present case, foundational facts—existence of tenancy, nature of payments, and authenticity of the sale deed—were disputed.
3. The statement of account submitted by the appellant was insufficient to establish admitted liability.
4. The trial court was correct in refusing interim directions for deposit of rent at this interlocutory stage.

Decision:

1. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s order.
2. No directions were issued for interim deposit of rent or arrears.
3. Any pending applications stood closed.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Order XXXIX Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Direction for deposit of admitted amounts.
2. Principles regarding interlocutory orders and the requirement of admitted liability.

Citation: 2025:DEL:FAO:332/2023

Case: Anuradha Tewari v. Bal Kishan

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha

Date of Decision: 17 November 2025

First Appeal (FAO) No.: 332 of 2023