Delhi District Court
Lalit Kumar vs Sachin Khandelwal on 24 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAYANK MITTAL,
LD. SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 1020/23
CNR No. DLNW03-002133-2023
In the matter of :-
Shri Lalit Kumar
R/o D-6, Aman Vihar,
Kirari Suleman Nagar,
Delhi - 110086. ........Plaintiff
VERSUS
Shri Sachin Khandelwal
R/o O-277, O-Block,
Mangol Puri, Delhi-110083.
.....Defendant
Date of institution : 04.08.2023
Reserved for Judgment : 15.11.2025
Date of decision : 24.11.2025
Suit for Recovery and Damages
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 62,400/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand and Four Hundred Only) alongwith pendent lite and future interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of filing of suit till realization with cost of the suit.
CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 1 of 12 Plaintiff's Case
2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is that the plaintiff wanted to start his work of Pizza Restaurant and for that purpose the plaintiff was looking for a shop to start his business in the area of Mangol Puri, Delhi. While searching for the shop for his business the plaintiff got to know that a shop situated at Mangol Puri, Delhi which belongs to the defendant has been offered to let out on rent by the defendant. As the defendant is the owner of the aforesaid shop, hence the plaintiff in order to finalize the deal had approached the defendant to take the aforesaid shop on rent from the defendant and after discussion the defendant asked for monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/- for the aforesaid shop but the plaintiff requested the defendant to let out the said shop @ Rs.25,000/- per month but the defendant refused to agree over said rent.
Thereafter, the defendant asked the plaintiff to come on dt. 01/03/2023 to take the keys of the aforesaid shop and as such on dt.01/03/2023 the plaintiff reached at the shop and called the defendant and when the defendant came at the shop then the plaintiff gave a sum of Rs.5,000/- through paytm 01/03/2023 and the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- by way of cash on dt. 02/03/2023, hence in this manner the plaintiff paid advance monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- and the defendant promised the plaintiff to hand over the keys of the aforesaid shop on dt. 03/02/2023. After getting assurance from the defendant the plaintiff also placed order for printing of banner, pamphlets and wall paper etc and also purchase a pizza making machine. On 03/02/2023, the plaintiff approached the defendant and demanded keys of the shop but the defendant avoided the CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 2 of 12 same either on one pretext or the other. Inspite of receiving the monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/- the defendant did not hand over the keys of the shop to the plaintiff despite regular visits by the plaintiff as such having no option the plaintiff asked defendant to refund the entire above but the defendant flatly refused to refund the aforesaid amount.
The plaintiff not even for a single day got a chance to use the said shop because the defendant did not hand over the keys to the plaintiff despite receiving the monthly rent but upon much persuasion of the plaintiff the defendant refunded a sum of Rs. 18,000/- out of total amount of Rs. 30,000/-, to the plaintiff and when the plaintiff asked the defendant as why he has deducted Rs.12,000/-from the total monthly rent then the defendant falsely alleged the plaintiff that the plaintiff has used the shop for about eight days and amount for eight days has been deducted from the monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-but such version of the defendant was totally wrong and false because the plaintiff not even for a single day used the shop as the defendant did not hand over the keys of the shop to the plaintiff rather the plaintiff has invested substantial amount in renovation of the shop.
In this manner, the defendant has played fraud with the plaintiff by illegally holding the legitimate outstanding of Rs. 62,400/- of the plaintiff which includes damages for 50,400/- i.e Rs. 8,400/- approx spent over printing of Menu card /pamphlets/banner, Rs.12,000/- over wallpapers for renovation of restaurant, Rs.30,000/- over purchase of counter form olx, and further outstanding of Rs. 12,000/- as the remaining rental amount hence, in this manner the plaintiff has invested a sum of Rs.62,400/- in the said shop which includes damages and advance rent and due to acts and CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 3 of 12 deeds of the defendant the plaintiff has been made to suffer loss of around Rs.62,400/- and for which the defendant is solely responsible, hence the defendant is legally bound to pay the losses as suffered by his client.
The plaintiff on several occasions asked the defendant to clear the legitimate dues of Rs.62,400/- but the defendant has totally failed to clear the aforesaid dues to the plaintiff rather defendant not only hurled abusive filthy language and passed castist remarks and he has also extended threats to the plaintiff to forget about the aforesaid amount. Hence, the present suit.
Defendant's Case
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant contended that the plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts. It is stated that the present suit is without cause of action and liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The present suit is not maintainable as the same is based on forged and fabricated documents. Documents filed by the plaintiff are totally forged, manipulated and fabricated documents as apparent on its face, therefore, legal action under Section 340 CrPC for committing forgery is liable to be initiated against the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendant never agreed to let out his shop to the plaintiff, therefore, question of taking advance monthly rent from the defendant in respect of the shop in question does not arise at all. The entire claim of the plaintiff is bogus and imaginary, therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed out rightly. It is submitted that the plaintiff was asked to pay at least three months rent in advance of the shop and to execute and register a lease/rent deed before the CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 4 of 12 sub registrar in respect of the shop but the plaintiff has failed to pay the remaining Rs. 85,000/- to the defendant due to the said failure, the shop of the defendant remained vacant and the defendant suffered loss of monthly rent of the shop. It is submitted that without paying rent in advance for three months, question of handing over the keys of the shop does not arise at all. The plaintiff failed to pay at least one month rent of the shop to the defendant Rs. 30,000/- in total, therefore, question of avoiding the plaintiff on the part of defendant and handing over the keys of the shop does not arise at all. The plaintiff failed to pay 3 month rent in advance to the defendant, therefore, the question of refund of Rs. 5000/- does not arise at all as the defendant has suffered a loss at least for one month rent due to vacation of his shop, hence, the above said amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been forfeited by the defendant and the plaintiff is not entitled for the same.
4. Replication not filed.
5. Issues After completion of pleadings, vide order dated 22.01.2024, the following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor for trial :
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of an amount of Rs. 62,400/- along with interest @ 18 per annum as prayed for ? OPP
(ii) Relief
6. Plaintiff's Evidence 6.1 Sh. Lalit Kumar was examined as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 5 of 12 in evidence Ex. PW1/A has stated and deposed on lines of plaint in his affidavit of examination in chief. He has relied upon the documents the following documents:
(a) Copy of police complaint dated 15.03.2023 is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
(b) Copy of screen shots of online payment made by the plaintiff to the defendant is Ex.PW1/2 (objected to on the ground of admissibility by Ld. Counsel for defendant).
(c) Original Bill of Printing Press is Ex.PW1/3.
(d) Copy of address from where the plaintiff purchased counter for the shop is Ex.PW1/4 (objected to on the ground of mode of proof by Ld. Counsel for defendant).
(e) Copy of screenshot of chats between the plaintiff and person from whom the plaintiff purchased counter is Ex.PW1/5 (objected to on the ground of admissibility by Ld. Counsel for defendant).
6.1.1 During his cross examination he deposed that he has not taken any receipt for the payment of Rs. 25,000/- from the defendant. He denied the suggestion that he does not have any receipt since he did not pay Rs. 25,000/- to the defendant and also that he was not given a shop situated at Mangopuri, Delhi on rent by the defendant since he did not agree to pay three months rent in advance. It is correct that keys of the said shop were not given to him by the defendant. He denied the suggestion that the defendant had not refunded Rs. 18,000/- to him. No legal proceedings were conducted on the complaint Ex.PW1/1 by the police officials. He denied the suggestion that since Ex.PW1/1 is a false complaint, therefore, no proceedings were conducted by the police official. He volunteered that he CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 6 of 12 has video recording of Rs. 18,000/- paid by the defendant to him. It is correct that no date is mentioned in Ex.PW1/4. He does not have any receipt to show that he had purchased Pizza Counter from OLX. Vol., no receipts are issued for sale & purchase of second hand items from OLX. He denied the suggestion that he had purchased Pizza Counter from OLX after March, 2023 and not at the relevant time and that the defendant had incurred a loss of Rs. 25,000/-since the shop remained vacant for a month on account of non payment of advance rent by him and also that Ex.PW1/3 is a forged and fabricated document. It is correct that Ex.PW1/3 does not bear signatures of the seller and no GST has been charged. He denied the suggestion that he has filed a false case since the defendant did not return Rs. 5000/- paid by him as a token money for taking his shop on rent.
7. Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 21.01.2025 and the matter was adjourned for defendant's evidence.
8. Defendant's Evidence 8.1 Sh. Sachin Khandelwal was examined as DW1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. DW1/A and reiterated on oath the contents of his affidavit.
8.2 During his cross examination by ld. Counsel for plaintiff he stated that he does not know the plaintiff Sh. Lalit Kumar. (Vol. he came to him but he does not remember the date, month and year.) It is correct that the plaintiff agreed to take his shop on rent for a monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/- per month. He does not remember the plaintiff has paid Rs. 5,000/- as advance rent. It is correct that when he approached he told him to reduce CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 7 of 12 the monthly rent from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff asked whenever the defendant let out his shop whether he demanded 3 months advance rent. Defendant answered it no. It is correct that beside the rent over Rs. 30,000/- the plaintiff was agreed to pay electricity and water charges and no further charges was to be demanded from the plaintiff. It is correct that the plaintiff had demanded the key of shop after paying Rs. 5,000/- for renovation. It is correct that when he has demanded id of the plaintiff he has sent him a copy of his aadhar card but same was not clear. He does not remember the month in which the key was demanded. He did not demand 3 months rent in advance from the plaintiff. He has not let out the said shop to any tenant and his brother occupy the same. He has received the legal notice sent by plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that after paying Rs. 5,000/-, the plaintiff also paid Rs. 25,000/- in cash to him and that he has returned Rs. 18,000/- to the plaintiff after taking Rs. 30,000/- from him. He does not remember any police complaint was made by the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that he is liable to pay the suit amount and that he is deposing falsely.
9. Thereafter, the defendant's evidence was closed on 11.11.2025 and matter was listed for final arguments.
10. Final arguments have been heard. I have gone through the judicial record.
11. Now I shall give my issue-wise findings.
CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 8 of 12
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of an amount of Rs.62,400/- alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. as prayed for? OPP 11.1 The burden of proving this issues was upon the plaintiff. To discharge the burden of this issue, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1. PW1 has deposed on the line of plaint in his affidavit of examination in chief. PW1 was cross-examined at length. His cross-examination has been discussed above. In order to discharge the onus, shifted to defendant, on leading of evidence by plaintiff, the defendant has examined himself as DW1. DW1 has deposed on the line of WS in his affidavit of examination in chief. DW1 was cross-examined at length. His cross-examination has been discussed above.
11.2 Before giving findings on the evidence led by plaintiff and submissions advanced on behalf of plaintiff and defendant, it is important to note that in civil litigation, it is sufficient for litigants to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. In Adiveppa V. Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC
586. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Adiveppa (supra) has observed that:
"It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support thereof."
Thus, the burden to prove its case and that the burden to prove the case as per law entirely is upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
11.3 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of sum of CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 9 of 12 Rs. 62,400/- as defendant has not returned the Rs.12,000/- out of alleged advance of Rs. 30,000/- given by plaintiff to the defendant and also for recovering damages for the money spent by plaintiff for printing of menu card/pamphlets/banners and for affixation of wallpaper for renovation of restaurant as well as for purchase of counter from OLX. It is pertinent to mention that the case of plaintiff is that defendant has returned Rs. 18,000/- in cash out of the advance of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- through UPI and Rs. 25,000/- in cash) given by plaintiff to defendant.
11.4 In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1. Apart from the oral averments and depositions of plaintiff, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove either the payment of Rs. 25,000/- in cash to the defendant. Neither any witness has been examined to depose before the Court about the fact of his seeing or hearing himself about the advancing Rs. 25,000/- by plaintiff to defendant, nor any source has been stated and proved, from which the plaintiff has brought the said amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Further though plaintiff has averred the fact of getting the bill books printed, renovation of the said shop and purchase of counter and other material, however, plaintiff has not examined any witness, who could have depose before the Court the fact of printing bill books for plaintiff and receiving money for that, renovating the said room at the instructions of plaintiff and receiving the consideration for that, selling counter and other stuff to the plaintiff and sum of money for which such counter and other stuff was sold to the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff has admitted during his cross-examination that he had not received the keys of room from the defendant. It is difficult to understand as to how, the plaintiff can allege renovation in the room, when the said room was not CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 10 of 12 handed over by defendant to the plaintiff. The mere filing and exhibiting the compliant allegedly filed by the plaintiff to the concerned police station, the bill of printing and photograph of alleged counter, does not prove the contents of the complaint or the fact of filing of such complaint, the fact that bill books were printed for plaintiff and the counter was purchased by plaintiff and the consequential expenditure incurred by the plaintiff. The plaintiff could only prove the fact of advancing Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant through UPI, which in fact has been admitted by defendant as well.
11.5 During its cross examination, the defendant/DW1 has stated that he had not demanded the rent of three months in advance, however, in the WS filed by defendant, the defendant had defended the suit on the ground that defendant has not handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as plaintiff could not arrange the three months' advance rent agreed between plaintiff and defendant. On the basis of WS, defence evidence and arguments advanced on behalf of defendant, defendant could not justify the non-returning of Rs. 5,000/- advanced by plaintiff to the defendant, as proved by plaintiff during PE. 11.6 In view of abovesaid fact, as plaintiff could be proved the fact of advancing only Rs. 5,000/- to the defendant and could not prove the other advance to the defendant or any other expenditure incurred by him or the fact that the said expenditure was incurred at the instance of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 5,000/- only. Plaintiff is also entitled to the interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of decree till actual realization.
Relief CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 11 of 12
12. In view of my observations made while deciding issue no. (I), the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and followings reliefs are granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant:-
i. Decree for a sum of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand). ii. Interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff from the date of decree till the realization of the amount.
iii. Cost of the suit
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.Digitally signed
Announced in the Open Court by MAYANK
MAYANK MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
on 24.11.2025 2025.11.24
16:23:59 +0530
(Mayank Mittal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller,
North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi
CS No. 1020/2023 Lalit Kumar Vs. Sachin Khandelwal Page no. 12 of 12