Delhi District Court
Radhey Shyam Gupta vs Punjab And Sind Bank on 22 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE(COMMERCIAL)-07(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023
CNR No. DLCT01-0044592023
(Senior Citizen Case) DLCT010044592023
Radhey Shyam Gupta,
S/o Late Lala Kundan Lal,
G-7, Rohtagi Apartment,
Ram Kishore Road, Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054.
......Plaintiff.
Vs
Punjab and Sind Bank
21, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi.
Also At:
2612-13, Zere Fasil,
Naya Bazar,
Delhi-110006. .... Defendant.
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF
RENT AND FOR MESNE PROFITS.
Date of institution of suit : 27.03.2023
First Date before this court : 15.04.2024
Date on which arguments concluded : 10.03.2025
Digitally signed Date of Judgment : 22.03.2025
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR GUPTA
KUMAR Date:
2025.03.24
GUPTA 15:13:04
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 1 of 48
Appearance(s) : Shri Sanjay Gupta and Sh. Amol Sharma, Advocate Ld.
Counsels for plaintiff.
Ms. Seema Gupta, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the
defendant.
JUDGMENT
(A) PRELUDE:
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon plaintiff's suit for possession in respect of 50% share of the plaintiff in the property bearing no. 2612-13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi, Recovery of Rs.88,77,918.16ps, damages @ Rs.5,62,500/- per month w.e.f. April 2023 for illegal use and occupation of the property, a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to produce 'No Objection Certificate' from Delhi Jal Board and ensuring restoration of the water connection in the suit property in addition to a decree of perpetual injunction thereby directing the defendant not to handover the possession of the suit property to any third party except the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff has also prayed for interest @ 24% per annum pendentelite and future on the amount of damages and mesne profits from the date of filing of suit till its realisation besides costs of the suit.
(B) CASE OF PLAINTIFF
2. Eschewing prolix reference to the pleadings crystallizing the same the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that:-
2.1) He is the absolute and sole owner-landlord in respect of duly demarcated 50% of the Ground Floor and Basement Floor of the Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:13:18 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 2 of 48 property situated at 2612-13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006, more particularly, shown in red in the site plan annexed to the plaint ( herein after called the "suit property"). It is averred in the plaint that the suit property was last leased out for a period of 15 years to the defendant by virtue of a registered Lease Deed dated 30.04.2007 which has expired by efflux of time and after such expiry, the defendant continues to occupy the suit property as a tenant on month to month basis. It has also been averred that the said tenancy was also terminated by the plaintiff w.e.f. 30.09.2022.
2.2) It has been contended that as per the past practice since 1973 on expiry of each lease deed and its renewal, the escalation of rent was always given w.e.f. the date of expiry of the earlier lease deed with a retrospective effect. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on the expiry of lease deed dated 30.04.2007 w.e.f. 10.04.2021, the defendant became liable to pay the enhanced rent as it is occupying the suit property illegally. It has also been contended that the defendant is liable to pay the difference of the enhanced rent w.e.f. 11.04.2021 other than the actual rent being paid by it to the plaintiff and is liable to pay the damages from the date its tenancy was terminated.
2.3) It is further the case of the plaintiff that since as per past practice between the parties, the escalation of the rent was always from the date of expiry of the lease deed in existence and on renewal, was always enhanced retrospectively with the difference being paid by the defendant, the plaintiff alongwith his son has continued with the negotiations in respect of the rate of rent as the defendant was always MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH desirous of renewing the lease. Accordingly, based on the assurances and KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
2025.03.24 GUPTA 15:13:25 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 3 of 48 representations given by the defendant, the plaintiff remained under a bonafide impression with great expectations that renewal lease deed would be executed in due course and the difference of rent effective from 10.04.2021 shall be paid.
2.4) It has been further averred that at present the defendant had been paying rent @ Rs. 62,819/- per month which was to be enhanced from 10.04.2021 and duly negotiations, the plaintiff asked for a rent at the rate of Rs. 5,62,500/-, however, keeping in view the long standing five decade relationship between the parties, this was reduced to Rs.
3,56,250/- per month at the request of the defendant on the assurances that the lease shall be renewed expeditiously and the difference of the rental shall be paid at the earliest. The plaintiff has relied upon various letters and responses between the parties.
2.5) It has been further averred that despite repeated assurances to renew the lease deed at the enhanced rate, the defendant took a somersault indicating that it is not sure of renewing the lease deed with enhanced rent. The plaintiff still tried and wrote a letter to the defendant to negotiate and also putting the defendant on notice that it is liable to pay enhanced rent w.e.f. 10.04.2021, the date of expiry of lease deed. Receiving no response from the defendant to continue to occupying the suit property illegally, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 19.09.2022 by speed post to the defendant demanding the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 3,62,500/- per month uptil 30.09.2022, as per reduced offered rate, thereby mentioning that the market rent still continues to be at the rate of Rs. 5,62,500/-, thus demanding an outstanding amount of Rs. 52,11,883/- Digitally signed by MUKESH uptil September 2022 as difference of rent excluding interest, also MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24
15:13:32
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 4 of 48
terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 10.10.2022, calling upon the defendant to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property on or before 30.09.2022. And, in the eventuality of such failure, pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5,62,500/- per month. This legal notice was duly responded to by the defendant vide its reply dated 11.10.2022 disputing its liability to pay enhanced rent as per market practice w.e.f. April 2021 alleging the same to be on the higher side, also stating that the defendant is in process of shifting the branch to some other premises which is likely to take time. The plaintiff has contended that it cannot be put to mercy of the defendant giving them time to vacate.
2.6) The plaintiff has also claimed that the rent claimed by plaintiff from the defendant was a reasonable one since the prevailing market rent in the vicinity is more than Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. for the ground floor, whereas the plaintiff has demanded only Rs. 190/- per sq. ft. for the ground floor and Rs. 95/- per sq. ft. for the basement.
2.7) It is further the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff has also discovered that since 2012, defendant has not paid the water consumption charges and on account of illegal acts of the defendant, the water connection in the suit property has since been disconnected by Delhi Jal Board for which the defendant is also liable to pay a total sum of Rs.6,73,948/32ps.
2.8) The plaintiff also apprehends that the defendant may leave the suit property without informing the plaintiff and handover the possession thereof to a third party causing serious prejudice and as such the defendant is also liable to be injuncted from handing over the Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: possession of the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff.
GUPTA 2025.03.24
15:13:40 +0530
CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 5 of 48 2.9) The plaintiff has claimed cause of action when the lease deed dated 30.04.2007 expired by efflux of time on 10.04.2021 and also which various correspondences were exchanged between the parties, the date of legal notice dated 19.09.2022 issued by plaintiff asking the defendant to vacate the premises and clear the outstanding rent and mesne profits and finally on 11.10.2022, when the defendant sent reply to the same. The cause of action is stated to be a continuing one. Hence, the present suit for recovery of possession of the suit property, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and other corollary reliefs.
(C) DEFENDANT'S CASE:-
3. On receipt of summons for settlement of issues, the defendant contested the suit by filing a detailed Written Statement denying each and every averments and taking various preliminary objections:-
3.1) The suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has suppressed material facts that the suit property is an undemarcated/unpartitioned property as other 50% share of the property is in the ownership of co-
owners namely Mr. Ghanshyam Dass Gupta and Ms. Mansi Gupta whereas the defendant was the tenant/lessee over the entire 100% portion of the property.
3.2) It is further contended that the plaintiff had always treated the defendant as its tenant even after the expiry of the lease period on 09.04.2021 as per lease deed dated 30.04.2007 and also monthly rent of Rs. 62,819/- (after deduction of TDS) was being regularly deposited by Digitally the defendant in the account of the plaintiff which has been accepted by signed by the plaintiff without any protest, as such, waiving his right to plead MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.24 15:13:47 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 6 of 48 expiry of lease deed by showing its intention to treat the same as subsisting one. It has been claimed that the defendant has become tenant by 'holding over'. It has been further contended that even in the legal notice dated 19.09.2022, sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, the plaintiff has constantly referred to the word 'rent' where it was mentioned that the defendant was liable to pay enhanced rent as per market rate w.e.f. 10.04.2021. It has been contended that as per his own admission in the legal notice, the lease was terminated w.e.f. 10.10.2022, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the difference of rent amounting to Rs. 52,11,883.84ps at the market rate w.e.f. April 2021 to September 2022 and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this count also.
3.3) It is further contended that plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and not liable to pay the water bills as there was no water meter of Delhi Jal Board installed in the suit property. It has been contended that the defendant has paid the outstanding water bills of Rs. 4,32,425/- to Delhi Jal Board after availing 75% LPSC rebate for which a copy of payment receipt no. 899597835527 dated 31.03.2023 is also filed.
3.4) It is finally contended that plaintiff has failed to show that the alleged market rent of the suit property is Rs. 5,62,500/- as no documentary proof has been filed by the plaintiff.
3.5) On merits, all the allegations made in the plaint are denied as incorrect except those are matter of record. The defendant has reiterated the contention regarding the property being not duly Digitally signed demarcated as claimed and no partition wall existing at site whereby by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR which the 50% share of the plaintiff can be vacated making the suit not GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24
15:13:53
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 7 of 48 maintainable. While admitting the execution of the registered sale deed dated 30.04.2007, it has been contended that even after expiry of the lease period of 15 years w.e.f. 09.04.2021, the defendant was treated as a tenant by the plaintiff by his conduct as clearly evident from the communication/letter dated 04.10.2021, 16.03.2022, 07.04.2022, 15.06.2022 and 27.06.2022 written by the plaintiff to the defendant bank.
It has been further stated that the monthly rent of Rs. 62,819/- has been regularly deposited in the account no. 0175100000160 of the plaintiff which has been accepted by the plaintiff without any protest or objection even after expiry of lease period on 09.04.2021 as also the legal notice of the plaintiff has repeatedly referred to the word 'rent' thereby treating the defendant bank as its tenant even after 09.04.2021.
3.6) the defendant has vehemently denied the allegations of practice between the parties to renew the lease from back date with escalated rent being paid from the date of expiry of lease deed. It has been averred that if at all the rent was enhanced in the past, the same was with the consent of the defendant bank and was never automatic.
3.7) It has been finally averred that the plaintiff has always treated the defendant bank as its tenant even after expiry of lease period with the only difference regarding the rate of rent. The defendant has vehemently denied that it has ever been assured by officers of the defendant bank as entitled to enhanced rent from the date of expiry of earlier lease period i.e. 10.04.2021 or ever any impression or bonafide expectation was given that the lease deed would be renewed in due course with arrears of rent at enhanced rate. It has been also averred that the defendant has never consented to pay alleged market rent of Rs.
Digitally signedMUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:14:00 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 8 of 48 5,62,500/- per month for the suit premises which was high exorbitant as compared to the market rent. It has been claimed that the plaintiff himself reduced the offer of rent to Rs. 3,56,250/- per month. The defendant has finally stated that even otherwise, the plaintiff has failed to file any documentary evidence to prove or to show that the market rent of the arrear in which suit premises is situated is what is being claimed by the plaintiff. While admitting, the communications exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant being matter of record, it has been reiterated that the defendant has neither agreed enhanced rent at claimed by the plaintiff.
3.8) While referring to the legal notice dated 19.09.2022, the defendant has averred that the same has been duly replied to by the defendant through its counsel on 11.10.2022 thereby clearly impressing that the demand of Rs. 5,62,500/- was out of question and as such, the defendant is not liable to pay the claimed amount of Rs. 52,11,833.84ps.
The defendant has further denied that the breakup of the aforesaid amount as wrong and has stated that there is no question of either paying the enhanced rate at the rate of Rs. 3,56,250/- or Rs. 2,93,430.90 ps after deducting the rent already paid or mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5,62,500/- per month. It has been contended that the plaintiff is neither entitled to possession nor the amount claimed towards recovery of enhanced rate or mesne profits.
3.9) The defendant has also denied any liability to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 6,73,948.32ps towards water consumption Digitally signed charged to Delhi Jal Board and has stated that the appropriate amount of by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: Rs. 4,32,425/- has already been paid by the defendant to Delhi Jal Board GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:14:07 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 9 of 48 and as such, the plaintiff is also not entitled to any mandatory injunction accodingly.
3.10) The defendant has finally refuted the claim of perpetual injunction as not maintainable for the reason that the defendant cannot leave the suit property and handover the possession of the same to any third party as claimed since the property is undemarcated at present and 50% share of the plaintiff cannot be vacated in the absence of any partition wall separating the other 50% share of co-owner Mr. Ghanshyam Gupta and Ms. Mansi Gupta. The defendant has finally prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
4. A detailed replication to the Written Statement was also preferred by the plaintiff reiterating the contents of the plaint and vehemently denying the contents of the Written Statement. The plaintiff has rather averred that the defendant has not only admitted the lease deed dated 30.04.2007, the extent of 50% share of the plaintiff in ground floor and basement of the suit property being leased out and duly demarcated by way of site plan in the lease deed but has also admitted the factum of lease deed expiring by efflux of time on 09.04.2021. It has been averred that the defendant by admitting the legal notice dated 19.09.2022 has also accepted the fact of termination of tenancy, thereby entitling the plaintiff to relief of possession immediately. While seriously objecting to the contention of the defendant being a tenant by holding over even after the expiry of lease deed period w.e.f. 09.04.2021, the plaintiff has stated that the aforesaid objection is legally misconceived and merely deposit MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA of the rent in the account of the plaintiff by the defendant does not make KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:14:13 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 10 of 48 it a tenant by holding over or the use of the expression "rent" used in communication or legal notice would come to the rescue of the defendant.
4.1) While vehemently denying each and every allegations of the written statement, the plaintiff has reiterated that the defendant has actually admitted that the suit property was leased out by way of a separate registered lease deed in respect of 50% share of the suit property which also contains a site plan which is a replica of the site plan filed alongwith the suit. It has been averred that by making false statements, the defendant bank has made itself liable under Section 343 of the Cr.P.C. The plaintiff has reiterated its claim not only for the relief of possession, recovery of damages/mesne profits but has clearly stated that the suit be decreed with interest and costs.
(D) CRYSTALISING THE DISPUTE :-
5. On the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record and after perusing the affidavit of admission & denial of the defendant and the following issues were framed for adjudication vide order dated 19.12.2024.
ISSUES.
(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable, it having being filed seeking recovery of possession of physically undemarcated/un-
partitioned property at site ?OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the suit property Digitally i.e. 50% share of the plaintiff in property bearing No.2612-13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
Delhi-110006? ? OPP.
GUPTA 2025.03.24
15:14:19
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 11 of 48
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent, damages and water charges from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for what period?OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages @ Rs.5,62,500/-per month from the defendant for illegal use and occupation of the property ?OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction, as prayed ?OPP
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for what period?OPP.
(vii) Relief.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that as the defendant bank has cleared all dues of the Delhi Jal Board, the court vide its order dated 30.01.2024 amended the issue No.3 to the following effect:
"(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent and damages from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)"
(E) EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF.
7. Plaintiff, in support of its case, got examined four witnesses besides himself as PW1, his nephew Shri Ghanshyam Dass as PW2 and summoned witnesses Ms. Manju, the Record Keeper from Office of Sub-
Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi as PW3, Shri Karunesh Kumar, Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank as PW4 and Shri Sudhir Kumar, MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH Regional Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank as PW5. KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:14:26 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 12 of 48
8. PW1 Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, the plaintiff herein, reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and got exhibited the site plan of suit property as Ex. PW1/1, copy of Lease Deed dated 31.12.1998 as Ex.PW1/2, copy of Lease Deed dated 30.04.2007 as Ex.PW1/3, letter dated 04.10.2021 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant bank as Ex.PW1/4, reply dated 08.11.2021 of the defendant as Ex.PW1/5, reply dated 26.11.2021 of the defendant bank as Ex.PW1/6, letter dated 16.03.2022 and letter dated 07.04.2022 of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8 respectively, E-mail dated 15.06.2022 of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/9, letter dated 21.06.2022 of the defendant bank as Ex.PW1/10, E-mail and letter dated 27.06.2022, and letters dated 22.07.2022 and 05.09.2022 of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/11, Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/13 respectively. The Legal notice dated 19.09.2022 alongwith Postal Receipt sent to the defendant and its reply dated 11.10.2020 got exhibited on record as Ex.PW1/14 and Ex.PW1/15 respectively. The witness finally exhibited his last letter dated 22.10.2022 to the defendant bank as Ex.PW1/16. He has further been deposed that the suit is correct and the defendant is liable to hand over the possession of the suit property and to pay the outstanding amount alongwith interest and costs.
9. The witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant Ms. Gupta who has tried to puncture his testimony on the point of termination of tenancy by expiry of Lease Deed dated 30.04.2007 on 10.04.2021, the factum of plaintiff requesting Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA the defendant bank for vacating the suit premises only after legal notice KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:14:33 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 13 of 48 and not during its earlier communications Ex.PW1/4, 7, 8,9,11,12 and 13, the aspect of agreement for extension of the lease deed on mutually agreed terms and finally on the aspect of the calculation of damages/arrears of rent/mesne profits on per square feet basis. The witness was also cross-examined regarding his share in the entire property and the absence of partition wall between two portions thereof as also the rate of rent of nearby banks being situated on the main road while the suit property being situated in a street.
10. PW2 Shri Ghanshyam Dass, the nephew of the plaintiff has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He has deposed that he is the co-owner of the 50% of the Ground Floor and Basement of the property situated at 2612-13, Zaire Fazal, Naya Bazar, Delhi . He has deposed that the remaining 50% of the property is owned by plaintiff.
He has deposed that his father Leela Dhar was earlier a joint owner of the property alongwith the plaintiff and later partitioned the same in equal shares vide a registered partition deed dated 10.06.1997 and the area was demarcated on the site plan. He has further deposed that after partition, both the owners have given their respective share on lease to the defendant bank by virtue of separate lease deeds. He has further deposed that there is no dispute on the area and demarcation thereof between the owners despite the fact that there is no partition wall . He has further deposed that he has no objection of any nature whatsoever if the plaintiff is receiving possession of his portion in the property in Digitally signed by MUKESH accordance with the lease deed dated 30.04.2007. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:14:40 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 14 of 48
11. During cross-examination, PW2 has deposed that he has also given his 50% of undivided share of property 2612-13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi on rent to the defendant bank for 15 years starting from 2007 till April, 2022. He has admitted that he has not filed any suit against the defendant bank for vacating his portion but denied the suggestion that his portion and the portion of the plaintiff cannot be identified as there is no partition wall. Voluntarily adding that the partition deed clearly and categorically identifies their respective portion of the property in view of the map annexed with the partition deed.
12. PW3 Ms. Manju, Record Keeper from the office of Sub-
Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi was summoned for the purpose of proving the two registered lease deeds, one having registration No. 2952, book No.1 Vol. 2213 pages No. 135-146 dated 30.05.2007 and the 2nd lease deed having No. 766, book No.1 Vol. 98 pages No. 127-136 dated 16.04.1999 which got exhibited on record as Ex.PW3/2 and Ex.PW3/3 respectively. She was also subjected to a formal cross- examination by Ld. Counsel Ms. Gupta, of defendant bank.
13. PW4 Shri Karunesh Kumar Sharma, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Naya Bazar, Delhi was examined by the plaintiff as summoned witness for the purpose of enquiry into mesne profits by proving the market rent for nearby properties. He got exhibited the lease deed bearing registration No. 1819 Book No.1, Vol. 8042 page no. 174-181 dated 29.02.2020 of the property bearing No. 4136, 1 st floor, Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date: Naya Bazar, Delhi Carpet Area ad- measuring 1932.72 square feet GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:14:47 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 15 of 48 taken by Oriental Bank of Commerce (the predecessor of the Punjab National Bank from the owners/landlord Bimla Devi and Santosh Devi as Ex.PW4/1. The witness was subjected to the cross-examination wherein he was asked about his interest in deposition in favour of the plaintiff, the location of his bank branch on the main road and the location of the defendant bank in the street at the distance of about 500 meters to show that the defendant bank being situated in a Street (Gali) cannot be compared to his branch on the main road on account of being differently located.
14. PW5 Shri Sudhir Kumar, Regional Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Branch, Naya Bazar, Delhi has also been summoned for the same purpose and got exhibited the lease deed bearing registration No. 1210 Book No.1, Vol. 9591 page no. 141-159 dated 03.02.2023 of the property bearing No. 4079, Ground Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi Carpet Area ad- measuring 1244 square feet taken by his bank only from one Ambika Singhal, landlord of the property on the monthly rent of Rs.4,59,238/33ps as Ex.PW5/1. The witness was also subjected to detailed cross-examination on the aspect of its location on main road and the location of defendant bank being located inside the street and thus cannot be compared on account of being differently located. The witness has also been deposed that the defendant bank is not visible from his branch situated in Naya Bazar.
15. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 08.11.2024.
Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date: GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:15:08 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 16 of 48 (F) DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE :-
16. The defendant in its defence examined only one witness its Senior Manager Shri Randhir Singh, earlier posted at the defendant concerned bank branch at Naya Bazar Delhi as DW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He reiterated the contents of the Written Statement on oath in his affidavit and got exhibited the same alongwith his affidavit of admission denial as Ex.DW1/1 (colly), the certified Statement of account no.01751000001602 of the plaintiff with the defendant bank from 01.01.2021 till 17.05.2023 to show the payment of upto date rent as Ex.DW1/2, Certificate u/s 2A and 2B of Banker's Book Evidence Act, as Ex.DW1/3. He has reiterated in his deposition that the defendant bank has been a tenant/lessee over the entire 100% portion of ground floor and basement floor of the property situated at 2612-13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006 and there are no partition wall demarcating 50% share of the plaintiff with other co-owner Mr. Ghanshyam Dass Gupta and Ms. Mansi Gupta at the site. He has further reiterated that suit property is located inside the Gali(Street) and not on the main road and the other banks i.e. Punjab National Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank are located on the main road and, therefore can fetch better rent than the suit property. He has further deposed that there was no agreement in writing between the parties to pay enhanced rent or difference of rent to the plaintiff by the defendant bank and the plaintiff had accepted the rent from the defendant bank even after expiry of lease period on 09.04.2021 and the rent of Rs.62,819/- has been paid upto date to the plaintiff and as such the defendant bank is not liable to pay either Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR enhanced rent or any alleged difference of rent of Rs.52,11,883.84ps to KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24
15:15:31
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 17 of 48 the plaintiff w.e.f. April 2021 to September, 2022 as the plaintiff had treated the defendant bank as his tenant till he had served the legal notice dated 19.09.2022 for vacation on the defendant bank. He has deposed that prior to the legal notice, the plaintiff had never asked for vacation of the suit property from the defendant bank through his various communications which were exchanged between the parties and continued to accept the rent from the defendant bank. He has also deposed that the defendant bank is not liable to pay any alleged interest @ 24% to the plaintiff on the alleged arrears of rent/damages as the defendant bank was treated by the plaintiff as his tenant even after expiry of lease period on 09.04.2021 till the legal notice dated 19.09.2022 for vacation of suit property was served upon the defendant bank.
17. The witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Shri Sanjay Gupta, on the aspect of the continued tenancy of the entire property situated at ground floor and basement since 1973 to 09.04.1991 whereafter which separate lease deeds were executed by the defendant bank with the plaintiff and other co-owners, the knowledge regarding existence of partition deed between the co-owners resulting into execution of separate lease deed after 31.12.1998, the identification of the correct portion being owned by the plaintiff and other co-owners Shri Ghanshyam Gupta, the valuation of the property at the present rate being carried out by the defendant bank and the fact that the bank is negotiating with the other co-owners for renewal of the lease deed. The witness was also subjected to cross- examination on the aspect of mesne profits while comparing the suit Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
2025.03.24 GUPTA 15:15:38 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 18 of 48 property with other leased properties including banks situated in the surrounding area.
18. No other witness was examined by the defendant and the evidence of the defendant was closed vide statement dated 26.11.2024.
(G) ANALYSIS & DETERMINATION:-
19. I have heard the vehement arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the parties for quite sometime and perused the entire record including the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the same. My issue-
wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE No.1. "Whether the suit is not maintainable, it having being filed seeking recovery of possession of physically undemarcated/un-partitioned property at site ?OPD"
20. The onus of proving this issue was held upon the defendant who has taken a preliminary objection in its Written Statement that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as he has suppressed material facts that the suit property is an undemarcated/unpartitioned one since other 50% share of the property is in the ownership of other co-owners namely Mr. Ghanshyam Dass Gupta and Ms. Mansi Gupta whereas the defendant was the tenant/lessee over the entire 100% portion of the ground floor and basement of property bearing no. 2612-13, Zara Fazal, Naya Bazar, Delhi and hence a decree for possession thereof cannot be granted since Digitally signed the other co-owner has not filed a separate suit for possession thereof.
by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date: GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:15:46 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 19 of 48
21. Ld. Counsel for the defendant Ms. Gupta has vehemently argued that it is an admitted fact in the cross-examination by PW1 Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta that there is no partition wall between his part of the entire properety and the portion belonging to the other co-owner. She has also sought to argue that even if it is considered that the bank has executed separate lease deed with the plaintiff and other co-owner, the same was only a notional partition without any actual partition at site. She has also argued that the admission of site plan by DW1 does not change the situation as site plan also reflect the same. Therefore, there being no demarcation of suit property in the absence of partition wall, a decree for 50% unidentified/un-demarcated cannot be sought by the plaintiff.
22. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the pleadings, evidence and the order dated 19.12.2023 clearly reveal that the property was partitioned and was duly demarcated dehors a partition wall. He has sought to argue that the property was the single owned property of late Shri Leela Dhar and taken by the defendant as such since 1973 and after his death, the same was partitioned on 10.06.1997 whereafter which, the bank has executed separate lease deed in respect of the 50% portion owned by the plaintiff and other 50% portion owned by the other co-owner and as such there is no dispute regarding identification of the property so as to deprive the plaintiff from its lawful decree for possession thereof.Digitally signed
MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
2025.03.24 GUPTA 15:15:52 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 20 of 48
23. If the arguments are carefully considered in the light of the evidence which hass come on record, it is an admitted position that the defendant bank is in possession of the entire property bearing 2612-13, Zara Fazal, Naya Bazar, Delhi as a tenant since 1970 by virtue of a single lease deed which was renewed from time to time initially by Shri Leela Dhar and later by his LRs after his death. The plaintiff has heavily relied upon the reference to the registered partition deed dated 10.06.1997 whereby which the entire property was partitioned by metes and bound between the plaintiff and other co-owners and has even tried to bring the document on record by moving an application before the court under Order XI Rule 5 CPC which was duly considered by Ld. Predecessor of this court which partly allowed the same though by refusing to take the partition deed on record but making a clear observations that the factum of the partition is not a fact in dispute nor is the fact that the plaintiff is owner of 50% owner of the property in question. It is also a matter of record that the registered lease deed dated 31.12.1998 Ex.PW1/2 which was renewed on 30.04.2007 Ex.PW1/3 contains a clear reference to the deed of partition dated 10.06.1997 whereby which the plaintiff and other co-owner have divided the property by metes and bound and also the fact that the plaintiff has become sole and absolute owner of the 50% of property after delineation of their respective shares. Interestingly, the lease deed Ex.PW1/3 also mentions that the share of the lessor is clearly outlined and shown in the red outlines in the site plan annexed to the lease deed Ex.PW1/3. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding execution, existence or MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA contents of this document (Ex.PW1/3) which includes a site plan KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:15:59 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 21 of 48 containing the necessary details and outlines. DW1 Shri Randhir Singh has himself admitted during his cross-examination that the site plan Ex.PW1/1 truly reflects the exact position of leased premises. PW2 Shri Ghanshyam Dass Gupta, the witness of the plaintiff and co-owner of other portion has deposed in a clear or categoric manner that the property was partitioned by way of registered partition deed dated 10.06.1997 which clearly identifies his portion separately from the portion of the plaintiff in the demise premises. This deposition of the witness could not be breached by the defendant even during the entire cross-examination. Though, he has admitted that there exist no partition wall between the two portions but has clearly deposed that there was absolutely no dispute or confusion regarding the identity of the share in the property and has gone to the extent by stating that he can clearly identify 50% portion of the property in view of the map annexed with the lease deed Ex.PW1/3. It is also pertinent to mention that the lease deed Ex.PW1/3 contains a site plan and was consciously executed by the defendant bank with the plaintiff herein in respect of his portion only. The site plan annexed with the suit Ex.PW1/1 is a clear reproduction of the aforesaid site plan and shows no confusion or lack of clarity. Apposite to mention here that after expiry of the lease by efflux of time on 09.04.2021 the plaintiff has been in continuous communication for its renewal with the defendant bank and the defendant bank has been negotiating only on rental and market rent. Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/9, Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12 clearly reflect and corroborate the aforesaid position. Had there been any confusion regarding the identity or demarcation of the property, the defendant would have raised the issue Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 22 of 48 15:16:07 +0530 with the plaintiff at least once. Record shows that the same has never been disputed, so much so that when the defendant bank has finally decided to vacate the premises owned by the plaintiff, it started negotiation with the other co-owners. The legal notice dated 19.09.2022 Ex.PW1/14 given by the plaintiff u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was also duly replied to by the defendant vide its reply dated 11.02.2022 Ex.PW1/15 wherein no such plea regarding the absence of demarcation or the difficulty regarding identification of the property has been taken. It is settled proposition of law that in a suit for immovable property, the only requirement of law is that the plaint should contain a clear description of property identified by boundaries or numbers. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Subhaga and Ors. Vs. Shobha and Ors., 2006 (5) SCC 466 has also held that an immovable property can be identified either by boundaries or other specific description. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion and the evidentiary position taken on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities, the court is of the considered view that the defendant has utterly failed to discharge the onus conferred on its shoulder for proving the aforesaid issue. Consequently this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of the suit property i.e. 50% share of the plaintiff in property bearing No. 2612-13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006 ? OPP ".
24. The onus of proving this issue was held upon the plaintiff who has claimed to be the owner-landlord of the suit property. Since this issue MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH pertains to possession of the suit property, the same is pivotal to the KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:16:13 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 23 of 48 entire lis between the parties. As per the case of the plaintiff, the suit property was initially let out to the defendant bank for commercial purpose in the year 1973 vide a registered lease deed which was renewed from time to time on enhanced rent and other conditions as agreed to between the parties. Lastly, the lease deed Ex.PW1/3 was executed between the parties on 30.04.2007 (duly registered with Sub- Registrar-I on 30.05.2007). This lease deed became effective from 09.04.2006 and was for a period of 5 years with a stipulation for two renewals of 5 years each at the option of the lessee bank with a 15% increase in the lease rent on each occasion. The last rent @ Rs.62,819/-
per month was paid during the subsistence of lease period which expired by efflux of time on 09.04.2021. Since negotiations for further extension of the lease deed was going on between the parties which ultimately failed with the defendant bank showing its intention to vacate the suit property, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 19.09.2022 Ex.PW1/14 calling upon the defendant bank to vacate the property by 30.09.2022 and also pay outstanding difference of rent/damages for the period between 10.04.2021 and 30.09.2022 @ Rs.3,56,250/- and from 01.10.2022 till filing of the suit @ Rs.5,62,500/- and thereafter at the same rate till the time the possession of the subject suit property is handed over to the plaintiff. This notice was duly replied to by the defendant bank vide its reply dated 11.10.2022 by not only denying the contents of the legal notice but also asking to continue in the same premises at the same rate of rent till the time the defendant bank is able to locate a new premises for its branch. The defendant on the other hand Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR has though admitted the lease deed Ex.PW1/3 and the legal notice KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.24 15:16:20 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 24 of 48 Ex.PW1/14 has seriously refuted the contention regarding damages and mesne profit as claimed taking a plea that the plaintiff was always eager and willing to renew the lease deed but has been asking an exorbitant rent compelling the defendant to look for other premises. The defendant has also taken a defence for it being a defendant by holding out in contradiction to the stand of the plaintiff that it is actually a tenant by sufferance. The court shall be dealing with this legal aspect at appropriate stage in the forthcoming paragraphs.
25. Adverting to the possession, under the statutory framework, a suit for possession of a leased property can be filed u/s 5 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 in the manner as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The provisions regarding leases of immovable property has been laid down in section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and any lease which creates transfer of an interest in the demised property by way of creation of a right in favour of lessee for a period of more than one year is required to be compulsorily registered as per section 107 of the Act. If a lease is of a term less than one year or is based upon an unregistered document or continued by way of continuation of an existing lease deed after expiry of its period, the tenancy becomes a month to month tenancy which can be terminated by the lessor by serving a quit notice u/s 106 of TP Act, 1882. Section 111 of the Act, also provides for determination of the lease deed by efflux of time and through other eventualities including expiration of priod specified in quit notice u/s 106. The law in this regard has been laid down in a catena of judgments and need no reproduction herein.Digitally signed by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:16:29 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 25 of 48 Reliance placed on AIR 2012 SC 3325 Mangal Amusement Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 (2) SCC 728 Nopany Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh.
26. For the purpose of recovery of possession in case of leased/tenanted premises, the plaintiff is required to prove the following facts:
(i) Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties,
(ii) The tenant should not have a protection under Delhi Rent Control Act,1958, one of the condition being, the rent of the premises including maintenance charges, if any, should be more than Rs.3,500/- per month.
(iii) Service of quit notice u/s 106 (1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 upon the lessee and its failure to comply with the same on expiration of the period prescribed or 15 days from the date of service of such notice.
27. In the instant case, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant is not in dispute, the defendant in its Written Statement, Affidavit of Admission -Denial of documents and its testimony as DW1 has duly admitted the lease deed dated 30.04.2007 Ex.PW1/3 thereby admitting not only the relationship but also the extent of tenancy and the rate of rent. Moreover, the defendant has been paying rent @ Rs.62,819/- directly in the accounts of the plaintiff which the plaintiff has not refused or protested. Thus, the rate of rent is MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA admittedly more than Rs.3500/- and the defendant has no statutory KUMAR Date:
2025.03.24 GUPTA 15:16:37 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 26 of 48 protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1954.
28. Though the plaintiff has claimed that the tenancy was terminated with efflux of time under section 111 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, w.e.f. 10.04.2021 and he is entitled to damages for use and occupation of the suit property from that date itself, however, he has simultaneously issued a quit notice dated 19.09.2022 Ex.PW1/14 calling upon the defendant bank to vacate the suit premises on or before 30.09.2022. The service of legal notice/quit notice dated 19.09.2022 Ex.PW1/14 has been duly proved by way of plaintiff's testimony as PW1. The defendant has duly replied to the said legal notice vide its reply dated 11.10.2022 Ex.PW1/15. The testimony of PW1 in this regard, is not only clear and cogent but has remained unbreached during cross- examination. The defendant has in any case also admitted the receipt of Legal notice Ex.PW1/14 in its written statement as also in his affidavit of admission and denial of documents, though it has been claimed that the same was illegal as the tenancy could not have been terminated by issuance of such quit notice.
29. The tenancy thus created vide lease deed dated 30.04.2007 Ex.PW1/3 was validly terminated by the plaintiff by way of quit notice dated 19.09.2022 Ex.PW1/14 w.e.f. 01.10.2022 (though the contention regarding the same being terminated by efflux of time shall be relevant for determination of the damages/enhanced rent and shall be dealt appropriately). It is a settled proposition of law that on determination Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
on tenancy, the tenant/defendant was required to vacate the suit property GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:16:44 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 27 of 48 and hand over the vacant & peaceful possession to the landlord-plaintiff which the defendant has admittedly failed to do. Reliance placed on 1980 RLR (Note) 44 titled Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion and taken on the yardstick of preponderance of probability, the plaintiff has been able to prove the issue in his favour and against the defendant. Plaintiff shall thus be entitled to a decree of possession in respect of duly demarcated 50% of the Ground Floor and Basement Floor of the property situated at 2612- 13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006, more particularly, shown in red in the site plan annexed to the plaint.
31. This issue is, accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUES NO.3: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent and damages from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
32. The onus of proving this issue was also held upon the plaintiff. This issue initially incorporated the claim of the plaintiff regarding arrears of water charges amount to Rs.6,73,948/32ps which the defendant has admittedly settled with Delhi Jal Board leading to amendment of this issue by the court on 31.01.2024. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has clarified that this issue actually pertains to the claim of the plaintiff for enhanced rent/damages for the period starting from the expiry of the lease period i.e. 10.04.2021 Digitally signed by MUKESH uptil the period of vacation of the suit premises providing under the quit MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.24 15:16:56 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 28 of 48 u/s 106 (1) of T.P.Act, i.e. 30.09.2022. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the tenancy has expired by efflux of time on 09.04.2021 and since there were negotiations between the parties regarding renewal of tenancy, the defendant has actually become a "tenant by sufferance"
and as such the plaintiff is entitled to damages/mesne profits at the claimed rate of Rs.3,56,250/- per month minus the rent already paid by the defendant @ Rs.62,819/-, thereby totaling it to a sum of Rs.52,11,883/84ps. He has relied upon the pronouncement of law laid down in (2024) 8 SCC 668 titled Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar (HUF) Vs. Ashwin Bhanu Lal Desai and (2022) SCC online SC 1161 titled Indian oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sudera Reality Pvt. Ltd.
33. Ld. Counsel for the defendant Ms. Gupta on the other hand has vehemently refuted this contention relying upon the various communication filed and proved by the plaintiff between him and the defendant bank showing his intention to renew the lease deed and has argued that since there was no intention of the plaintiff to get the premises vacated from the defendant, the defendant become an implied tenant by holding over. She has even argued that the plaintiff has never asked for vacation of the suit property from the defendant bank but has only asked for increase in rent and enhancement thereof besides accepting the monthly rent @ Rs.62,819/- for which it has not even protested. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to any enhanced rent or damages for this period. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in MANU/SC/0703/1971 titled Bhawanji Lakhamshi Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR and Ors. Vs. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani and Ors., it has been argued KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.24 15:17:03 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 29 of 48 +0530 that mere acceptance of rent may waive the claim of the landlord to evict the tenant. She has further argued, relying upon the same judgment, that a clear distinction is required to be drawn between the tenant at sufferance and tenant by holding over or at will which in this case shall be clearly the later one. She has argued that the defendant having paid a upto date rent, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any enhanced rent or damages for the aforesaid period.
34. This raises an important question of law to be determined by this court in as much as in case of a tenant at sufferance, the landlord become entitled to damages/mesne profit from the day the tenant become an unauthorised occupant while in case of a tenant by holding over, a month to month tenancy is created and the landlord becomes entitled only to a legitimate rent. Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, lays down the effect of holding over and provides that if a lessee remains in possession even after determination of the lease and lessor (or his LR's) accepts the rent or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the tenancy becomes month to month tenancy as specified in section 106 of the Act and the landlord is required to issue a quit notice u/s 106 of the Act, asking for vacation of the leased premises. AIR 2013 Cal. 1994, R.S. Iron Industry Vs. Calcutta Pinkjrapole Society.
35. A tenant at sufferance is one who comes into possession of land by lawful title, but who holds it wrongfully after the termination of the term of expiry of the lease by efflux of time. The tenant at sufferance is, Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR therefore, one who wrongfully continues in possession after extinction of KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24
15:17:10
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 30 of 48
a lawful title. It cannot be created by contract and arises only by implication of law when a person who has been in possession under a lawful title continues in possession after that title has been determined, without the consent of the person entitled. A tenancy at sufferance does not create the relationship of landlord and tenant.
36. There is a subtle difference between a tenant by holding over and a tenant at sufferance, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V. Bhupal Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1966 SC 140. Holding over stands equivalent to the retention of possession after determination of lease, but with the consent of the landlord, whereas, on similar circumstances if the possession is without the consent of the landlord then the same stands out to be a tenant at sufferance. Interestingly, the aforesaid judgment also deals with the eventuality where a tenancy at sufferance is converted into a tenancy at will. The primal difference between the two being consent of landlord in continuing with the possession of a lessee even after determination of lease by any mode including efflux of time. It was held that:
"the tenancy on sufferance is converted into a tenancy at will by the assent of the landlord, but the relationship of the landlord and tenant is not established until the rent was paid and accepted. The assent of the landlord to the continuance of the tenancy after the determination of the tenancy would create a new tenancy. The possession of a tenant who has ceased to be a tenant is protected by law. Although he may not have a right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, his Digitally signed by possession is juridical".
MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24
15:17:16
+0530
CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 31 of 48
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Burmah Shell Vs. Khaja Midhat Noor 1988 (3) SCC 44 had the occasion of examining the effect of continued possession for a longer time on expiry of a lease deed executed between the parties where it has been succinctly held that in the absence of a registered document, the tenancy becomes a month to month tenancy and harmonious construction of Section 107 read with section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, is required to be made while deciding that it was a case of holding over and not continuous of old tenancy.
38. The entire gamut of law regarding interpretation of law relating to continued possession after determination of lease, the English concept of tenant at will and tenant at sufferance was decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma Ram Property (supra) and was recently examined and explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar (supra) wherein it was held that a tenant continuing in possession after expiry of lease may be treated as a tenant at sufferance which status is a shade higher than that of mere trespasser, in case of a tenant continuing after the expiry of lease, his original entry was lawful but a tenant at sufferance is certainly is not a tenant by holding over.
39. In simple words, while the tenant at sufferance continues to be in possession without the consent of the landlord; the tenant by holding over or at will continues to do so with the consent (express, implied or by conduct) of the landlord. Another difference between the two, is that Digitally signed if the tenancy is determined by efflux of time after expiry of the period MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
2025.03.24 GUPTA 15:17:23 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 32 of 48 +0530 specified in the lease deed, a tenant at sufferance is not required to be served with a quit notice u/s 106 (1) of the Act and shall be liable to pay damages/mesne profit from the date of determination of tenancy, while in case of the tenant at will or holding over, a notice u/s 106 (1) of the Act, shall be required to be served on the lessee and it is only after the period specified in the quit notice, the lessee shall become an unlawful occupant of the premises liable to pay mesne profit/damages at the market rate.
40. Now applying the aforesaid proposition of law to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the defendant bank continued in possession of the suit premises after 09.04.2021 i.e. expiry of lease period laid down in lease deed dated 30.04.2007 Ex.PW1/3. It is also an admitted fact, even by the defendant, that negotiations for extension of the lease for a further period on mutually agreed terms continued between the parties for a long period at least uptil 21.06.2022 when the defendant bank has written a letter Ex.PW1/9 expressing its intention that the suit property is not suitable for the defendant bank. It was only after the aforesaid letter that the plaintiff has written a letter dated 22.07.2022 Ex.PW1/12 mentioning that negotiations are not leading to a headway and the bank should clarify its position regarding its future plan to renew the lease deed and at what rates. The plaintiff has further mentioned that he values the five decade old relationship with the defendant bank and would like to continue the defendant bank to be a tenant in the suit property subject to renewal of lease deed. Interestingly, Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR no reply has been received from the defendant bank resulting into GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:17:31 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 33 of 48 issuance of another letter dated 05.09.2022 Ex.PW1/13 in which it has been mentioned by the plaintiff that the defendant bank is not sure of renewal of the lease deed and may be contemplating vacating the premises but no definite statement has been made. The plaintiff has reiterated that he valued the relationship with bank and has clarified that in case the bank is not inclined to renewal of the lease, the rate of enhanced rent may be discussed. And it is only after this, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 19.09.2022 Ex.PW1/14 asking the defendant bank to vacate the premises on or before 30.09.2022.
41. Further during his cross-examination as PW1, the plaintiff has admitted that it has never asked the defendant bank to vacate the premises before issuance of legal notice dated 19.09.2022 Ex.PW1/14 or during the entire negotiations for renewal of lease leading to issuance of various letters Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/13. This being the factual position, the defendant bank certainly cannot be called a tenant at sufferance as it continued its possession only with the consent of plaintiff albeit on surrounding factors, including the fact that the defendant bank has been a tenant in the suit premises since 1973 and has always renewed the lease deed from time to time after negotiations regarding the rate of rent from a back date i.e. from the date of expiry of its last lease deed. This being the case, though the defendant bank became a tenant by holding over or tenant at will on month to month basis but by its very conduct and the surrounding circumstances, it has created an environment that it is likely to renew the lease deed in respect of suit premises from a back date as MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH per past practice on an enhanced rent. This created a legitimate KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:17:37 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 34 of 48 expectation for the plaintiff and equity demands that the plaintiff should be entitled to at least some enhanced rent for the period between expiry of lease deed and the period mentioned in the quit notice. In this regard, the court has seen the lease deeds dated 31.12.1998 and 30.04.2007 Ex.PW1/2 and ExPW1/3 which stipulated a 15% increase after expiry of every five years during the period of lease. Accordingly, equity demands and interest of justice would be subserved if considering the entire evidence on record, a 15% increase on the last paid rent for the period 10.04.2021 to 30.09.2022 is granted to the plaintiff. This issue is decided accordingly partly in favour of plaintiff and partly against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.4: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages@ Rs.5,62,500/-per month from the defendant for illegal use and occupation of the property ?OPP"
42. The onus of proving this issue was held upon the plaintiff who has claimed a sum of Rs.5,62,500/- per month @ Rs. 225/- per square foot for the area of 2500 square feet of the suit property on account of damages/mesne profits w.e.f. 01.10.2022 i.e. the date of termination of tenancy of the defendant, as mentioned in the quit notice Ex.PW1/14 till the date of actual possession and handing over of the suit property to him. Though the plaintiff in the suit has calculated this amount to be Rs.29,98,086/- till the filing of the suit but at the same time has claimed at the same rate after filing of the suit till the defendant bank continue to occupy the suit property.Digitally signed
43. Now, damages or 'mesne profits' are those profits which the MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
2025.03.24 GUPTA 15:17:48 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 35 of 48 defendant is required to pay for its continued possession of the leased premises even after lawful determination of the tenancy. The entitlement of landlord to claim mesne profits is governed by Section 2 (12) of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) and shall mean those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property has actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom. It includes interest on such profits but exclude profits due to improvement made by a person in wrongful possession. The aforesaid provision has been duly interpreted in various judgments of Hon'ble superior court or in our own Hon'ble High court in case of landlord -
tenant disputes to be the amount which the premises can fetch if let out on rent during the period of its illegal occupation by the tenant. Right from Fateh Chand Vs. Balkishan Das AIR 1963 SC 1405, Maula Bux Vs. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554, Dilip Kumar Bhargava Vs. Urmila Devi & Ors. in RFA No. 129/2011, the courts have dealt with the aforesaid issue.
44. The Privy Council in the case of Gurudas Choudhury Vs. Kumar Hemandra Kumar Roy [1929(56) I.A. 290 and Harry Kampson Vs. Bhagu Mian (MANU/PR/0243/1929) observed as under:
"The test set by the statutory definition of "mesne profits was clearly not what the plaintiff has lost by his exclusion but what the trespasser has or might or would have made can only be relevant as evidence of what the trespasser might, with Digitally signed by MUKESH reasonable diligence have received. The possession of the MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date: judgment debtor and his wrongful possession are thus the prime GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:17:58 +0530 matter of consideration and not the possession of the landlord CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 36 of 48 the decree holder."
45. In Fateh Chand Vs. Balkishan Dass MANU/SC/0258/1963:
(1964) 1 SCR 515, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
the normal measure of mesne profits is the value of the use of land to the person in wrongful possession.
46. In Rattan Lal Vs. Girdhari Lal 1971 SCC OnLine Del 74 the Court clarified that the principle of mesne profits is not to compensate the lawful owner in case he has suffered the loss but to see whether the party in possession made profits or could have made profits with reasonable diligence during the period of occupation of the property. The Court held that the rent paid for such property could be the first basis of calculation of mesne profits, then the profits made by the trespasser if they are higher than the rent paid. (emphasis supplied)
47. A decree for mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC can and should have been made after an inquiry where as per settled law the court is required to consider various factors including the nature and location of property, the rate of rent prevailing in the market and other relevant factors. This has to be ascertained by considering the rents/possession of adjoining properties to be proved by the plaintiff.
48. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. M. Gulab Singh & Sons P. Ltd. (2018 SCC OnLine Del 6787), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in para-4, has observed that:-
"it was held by this Court on numerous occasions that Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
some amount of honest calculation and guess work is GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:18:07 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 37 of 48 always in built in the process of determining the mesne profits and courts are entitled on the basis of evidence on record of the suit, and more particularly documentary evidences, to arrive at honest and fair rate of rent which is payable as mesne profits.
The court has further held that:-
"there cannot be too many identical situations in almost overwhelming number of cases, and therefore, calculation of mesne profits on the basis of rate of rent payable by taking the rate of rent of the premises in question or rate of rent of the premises in the same area or nearby areas always involves an honest assessment by a civil court inasmuch as a civil court decides an issue in the suit on the basis of preponderance of probabilities".
As such, the calculation on the basis of rent payable taking into account the rate of rent that was applicable on such property or other property located in the same area was also approved.
49. Further, the law in this regard is no more res-integra, where the plaintiff has failed to do so and the court is well within its right to take judicial note of the relevant factors in award of mesne profits to the landlord. Our own Hon'ble High Court in the case of S. Kumar Vs. G.R. Kathpalia, 1999 RLR 114 has considered such factors and granted a annual increase of 15% per annum applying the provision of section 114 and 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Further Hon'ble High court in Anjani Devi Vs. VST Indust. 1990 (50) DRJ 807 and 1984 RLR 241 Indrawati Kapoor Vs. Union of India. has succinctly held that in the absence of the landlord giving sufficient evidence for market rent, the Digitally signed same can even be considered at double the contractual rent.
by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date: GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:18:15 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 38 of 48
50. In Atma Ram Properties (P) Limited Vs.Federal Motors (P) Ltd. MANU/SC/1047/2004: 2005 1 SCC 705, the Hon'ble Supreme Court with approval, referred to Bhagwandas Lakhamsi Vs.Kakabai AIR 1953 Nag. 186, wherein it was held that after determination of the tenancy, the position of the tenant is akin to that of a trespasser and he cannot say that the measure of damages awardable to the landlord should be kept tagged to the rate of rent payable under the provisions of the Rent Control Order. Accordingly, If the real value of the property is higher than the rent earned then the amount of compensation for continued use and occupation of the property by the tenant can be assessed at a higher value.
51. Applying the aforesaid proposition of law to the facts of the case, as already discussed, the plaintiff has claimed mesne profits @ Rs.5,62,500/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.10.2022 till the actual physical possession of the suit premises is received. It would be apposite to very briefly refer to the communication between the parties for arriving at just & fair determination of mesne profits. It may be seen that during negotiations the plaintiff has inigtially asked for enhanced rent @ Rs.225/- per square foot vide letter dated 04.10.2021 Ex.PW1/4. The plaintiff also agreed to carry out necessary changes and renovation as per the requirement of the defendant and mentioned the same in letter dated 16.03.2022 Ex.PW1/7 whereafter which on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has revised this offer @Rs190/- per square foot for the MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH ground floor and Rs.95/- per square foot thereby totaling to KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:18:21 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 39 of 48 Rs.3,56,250/- vide letter dated 07.04.2022 Ex.PW1/8. This was reiterated by the plaintiff after the defendant bank's architect made a visit to the suit premises and the plaintiff agreed to carry out necessary renovation as suggested. Things, hwever, changed thereafter when the defendant bank gave its reply dated 21.06.2022 Ex.PW1/9 stating that the premises are not suitable for defendant branch, primarily basing its response on the internal communication of the bank with Zonal Office Ex.PW1/5 which directed the bank to surrender a part of the premises and negotiate the rent. It was only after this letter dated 21.06.2022, the things started taking a different turn and the defendant started with an intention to vacate the suit premises on the ground of exorbitant rent while negotiating parallely with the co-owner of the other portion of the property. The bank also started looking for alternative premises and has also probably obtained the valuation report which according to plaintiff's counsel was best evidence withheld by the defendant. Now these facts are required to be kept in mind while considering the evidence of the plaintiff for the quantum of mesne profits.
52. In this regard, for the purpose of proving the market rent of nearby properties taken on lease by other nationalized and private banks, the plaintiff has examined two independent witnesses, one from Punjab National Bank with its branch in property bearing No.4136, First Floor Naya Bazar, with a carpet area of 1972.72 sq. ft. taken on lease vide lease deed registered on 29.02.2020 Ex.PW4/1. This lease deed shows rate of rent of Rs.3,18,900/- @ Rs.165/- per square foot. The second witness is from Kotak Mahindra Bank having a leased area of 1244 Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:18:28 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 40 of 48 square foot in property bearing No.4079, Ground Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi vide lease deed registered on 03.02.2023 Ex.PW5/1. This lease deed shows an average annual rent of Rs.55,10,860/- (i.e. Rs.4,59,238/- per month @ Rs.369/- per square foot). As per the contention raised by the plaintiff, these two properties are situated in the same area, almost similar location and are much less in terms of the total available area when compared to the area of the suit property in terms of square feet and are being taken at a much higher price by the nearby banks. The plaintiff has tried to create a similarity in terms of location for claiming the mesne profits @ Rs.5,62,500/- per month (i.e.225/- per sq. ft.).
53. Now, if these lease deeds and the evidence of PW4 and PW5 are carefully scrutinized, it is an admitted fact that both these properties are situated on main road while the suit property is situated inside a street.
It is also a matter of fact that the suit property is situated in an area called Zere Fasil in Naya Bazar which is admittedly inside a street not visible from the main road. PW4 during cross-examination has duly admitted that while his branch is on main road, the suit premises where the defendant bank is situated is at a distance of about 500 meters from his branch and is not visible from his bank. The witness has further admitted that both the premises cannot be compared as they are differently located. Similarly, PW5 during cross-examination has also admitted that the branch of the defendant bank (i.e. suit premises) is not visible from his branch situated at main road while admitting that his bank branch and the defendant bank are differently located and cannot be Digitally MUKESH signed by MUKESH KUMAR compared on account of such different location. This being the case, the KUMAR GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24
15:18:35
+0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 41 of 48
evidence when examined on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities, the lease deed brought by the plaintiff during the course of evidence of PW4 and PW5 cannot be called of properties which are situationally similar or comparable. It is a settled proposition of law that no comparison can be drawn on incomparable properties which may be governed by a number of factors including their locations which is particularly the case in a congested hub of commercial area like old Delhi where suit property situated. This is more so, when the suit property situated in a gali at about 500 meters from the main road while the comparable properties brought for comparison by the plaintiff are both situated on main road.
54. As already discussed, a decree for mesne profits as per Order XX Rule 12 of CPC can and should have been made after an inquiry which as per settled law is to be led by plaintiff by various factors including examining the rents/possession charges of adjoining properties. The plaintiff as scuh has not successful in establishing the same on the basis of testimony of the witnesses relied upon by him during evidence. No other succinct evidence has been brought by the plaintiff for determination of such amount as may be just and reasonable. It is a settled proposition of law that in the absence of any clear and cogent evidence, some amount of honest calculation and guess work is always in built in the process of determining the mesne profits and the courts are entitled to do so to arrive at a honest and fair rate of rent payable at mense profits. Reliance placed on New India Assurance (supra). In Vinod Khanna Vs. Bakshi Sachdev AIR 1996 Delhi 32 the Hon'ble Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:18:44 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 42 of 48 High Court has held that a judicial note may be taken by awarding an amount which is just and reasonable in respect of the suit property. Taking into account that the suit property is situated in the main hub of old/central, Delhi where the rates of commercial properties are on a steady rise and the suit property has been used for commercial purpose for last so many decades and the rent was increased by the parties from time to time at subsequent stages, and also keeping in view that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court discussed earlier in Anjani Devi (supra) and Indrawati Kapoor (supra), the court is of the considered opinion that mesne profits at the rate double the last paid rent i.e. Rs.
1,25,638/- per month (Rs.62,819/- X 2) shall be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. This would also be in synchrony with the last enhancement and renewal of the lease deed on 30.04.2007 when the rate of rent was increased from Rs.14,547/- to Rs.47,500/- with an increase of 226.5% which is almost double the earlier paid rent by the defendant bank.
55. Thus on the basis of aforesaid discussion and preponderance principle, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the mesne profits @ Rs.1,25,638/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2022 till the vacant possession of the suit property is received by the plaintiff. The issue is, accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.5:"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction, as prayed?OPP"
MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH
56. The onus of proving this issue was held upon the plaintiff who has KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:18:51 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 43 of 48 prayed for a perpetual injunction directing the defendant not to hand over the possession of the suit property to any third party except the plaintiff herein. In this regard, though the plaintiff has failed to lead any clear and succinct evidence, however, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant is not in dispute. The defendant having admitted the lease deed dated 30.04.2007 Ex.PW1/3 and the plaintiff having served a quit notice dated 19.09.2022 Ex.PW1/14 whereby which, the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant w.e.f. 01.10.2022, the defendant bank is liable to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff only. As such on the basis of aforesaid discussion and taken on the yardstick of preponderance of probability the plaintiff has succinctly proved the issue in his favour and against the defendant and plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of suit property. The defendant is, accordingly, permanently restrained from handing over the possession of the suit property i.e. duly demarcated 50% of the Ground Floor and Basement Floor of the property situated at 2612-13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006, more particularly, shown in red in the site plan annexed to the plaint to any one except the plaintiff herein.
ISSUE NO.6: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest from the defendant? If so, at what rate and for what period?OPP. "
57. The onus of proving this issue was held upon the plaintiff who has claimed an interest @ 24% per annum on the claimed amounts. Since the plaintiff has succeeded in proving its entitlement to arrears of Digitally signed by MUKESH rent and mesne profits, he shall also be entitled to a reasonable rate of MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:18:58 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 44 of 48 interest in terms of dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in catena of judgment, one such being 2005 (12) SCC 298 Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Saroj Baweja. Record shows that there is no stipulation of interest component of 24% per annum in the lease deed dated 30.04.2007 Ex.PW1/3 or legal notice dated 19.09.2022 Ex.PW1/14. There is nothing on record to suggest that any such stipulation was ever made or even proposed between the parties. In the absence of any such agreement, the court shall be left with no other option but to advert to the provisions of section 34 of CPC and provisions of Interest Act, 1978 since the amount is outstanding. However, Hon'ble Supreme court in a number of judgments reported as Pt. Munshi Ram @ Associates (P) Lt. Vs. DDA, 2010 SCC Online Delhi 2444, Rajendra Construction Co. Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others, 2005 (6) SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G. Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) has repeatedly mandated that courts must reduce the high rates of interest on account of the consistent fall in the rates of interest in changed economic scenario. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of transactions of the case and the aforesaid settled law, this court is of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met, if an interest @ 6% per MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA annum is granted to the plaintiff Digitally signed on the amounts of as determined in KUMAR Date:
2025.03.24 GUPTA 15:19:05 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 45 of 48 issue No.3 and issue No. 4 after adjusting the rent already paid by the defendant bank. This issue is, accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
(I) CONCLUSION:-
ISSUE No.7: Relief.
58. In view of aforesaid discussion & findings of the court on issues, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has successfully proved his case on the yardstick of proof of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, plaintiffs shall be entitled to following reliefs.
(a) "A decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of duly demarcated 50% of the Ground Floor and Basement Floor of the property situated at 2612- 13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006, more particularly, shown in red in the site plan (Ex.PW1/1) annexed to the plaint.
(b) Recovery of arrears of rent with a 15% increase on the last paid rent i.e. Rs.62,819/-for the period 10.04.2021 to 30.09.2022 after adjusting the rent already received.
(c) Recovery of damages/mesne profits @ Rs.
1,25,638/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2022 till the vacant possession of the suit property is received by the plaintiff. This would also be after Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
adjustment of rent earlier paid by the defendant bank. .
2025.03.24 15:19:20 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 46 of 48
(d) An interest @ 6% per annum on the amounts mentioned in para No. (b) and (c) aforesaid, and
(e) A decree of perpetual injunction in respect of suit property whereby which the defendant is permanently restrained from handing over the possession of the suit property i.e. duly demarcated 50% of the Ground Floor and Basement Floor of the property situated at 2612-
13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006, more particularly, shown in red in the site plan annexed to the plaint to any one except the plaintiff herein
59. The plaintiff shall however be entitled to the aforesaid reliefs subject to payment of deficient Court Fee, if any, within a period of 30 days from the date of judgment.
60. In the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff shall also be entitled to the costs of the suit throughout.
61. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
62. File be consigned to record room after due completion.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT .
DATED 22.03.2025 MUKESH Digitally
by MUKESH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2025.03.24
GUPTA 15:19:27 +0530
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-07
CENTRAL/DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 47 of 48
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the judgment contains 48 pages and each page has been digitally signed by me. The judgment was pronounced on 22.03.2025 in open court and is being checked, digitally signed and uploaded on 24.03.2025. MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA KUMAR Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.24 15:19:33 +0530 (MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-07 Central/Delhi CS (Comm.) No. 542/2023 Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Page no. 48 of 48