Delhi District Court
Kewal Ram Daswani vs Samshad on 8 May, 2025
DLCT010126892023
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL, DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-13, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) No. 1233/2023
CNR No. DLCT01-012689-2023
Sh. Kewal Ram Daswani
S/o Sh. Ghan Shyam Daswani
R/o CC-106-C, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi-110088.
Ph: 9999310350
........ Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Samshad
S/o Sh. Ishrafil Shah
R/o 6888/2, Qila Kadam Sarif, Nabi Karim,
Pahar Ganj, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar,
Delhi-110005.
Ph: 9582847524
........ Defendant
Date of Institution : 15.09.2023
Judgment Reserved on : 08.05.2025
Date of Decision : 08.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This suit has been filed by plaintiff against the defendant seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent and damages etc.
2. It is the case of plaintiff that he is owner of the suit property, i.e. one shop bearing No. 2325-26 (new), on the ground floor and measuring 11.66 sq. yds., without roof rights, built on CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 1/37 DLCT010126892023 freehold land situated at Teliwara, Bahadurgarh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006, by virtue of a sale deed dated 02.12.1999, which was duly registered as document No. 1258 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 50, on pages 09 to 16 thereof and as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with plaint.
3. It has been averred by plaintiff that the defendant is his tenant in respect to the suit property and he is using the same for commercial purpose since September, 2020 and he was inducted as a tenant in the said property through a rent agreement dated 11.08.2020 (it is actually 11.07.2020), which was duly registered vide registration No. 4,447 in Book No. 1, Vol No. 8,147 on pages 78 to 83 thereof with the office of Sub Registrar-I, New Delhi, Central District. It has also been averred that as per the said agreement, the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 28,000/- pm and the tenancy of defendant was for the period commencing from 01.09.2020 to 31.08.2021 and an interest free security amount of Rs. 56,000/-, excluding electricity and other charges etc., was also to be deposited by defendant with him, which was refundable at the time of vacating the said premises.
4. It is further averred by plaintiff that the tenancy of defendant was renewed after 31.08.2021 and a fresh rent agreement dated 13.10.2021 (it is actually 12.10.2021) was executed between them and the same was also duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar-I, New Delhi, Central District, CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 2/37 DLCT010126892023 vide registration No. 9,510 in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 8,719 and on pages 121 to 125 thereof. It has been submitted that as per this fresh agreement, the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 65,000/- pm, excluding electricity and water charges, and the tenancy period was w.e.f. 01.09.2021 to 31.07.2022 and interest free security amount was enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was refundable at the time of vacation of suit property, and the earlier security amount of Rs. 56,000/- was adjusted therein and defendant deposited the deficient amount of Rs. 44,000/- with him.
5. It has also been averred by plaintiff that the tenancy of defendant was lastly renewed vide rent agreement dated 23.12.2022 for a fresh period of 11 months commencing from 01.08.2022 to 30.06.2023 and even this agreement was duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar-I, New Delhi, Central District, vide registration No. 14,949, in Book No. 1, Vol No. 9,521 and on pages 186 to 190 thereof. It has been submitted that as per this last agreement, the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 71,500/- pm, excluding electricity and water charges, and the interest free security amount had remained same i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is also his submissions that although a cheque No. 051801 dated 23.12.2022 drawn on ICICI Bank, Shalimar Bagh, for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was mentioned in the said agreement, but the same was actually from account of daughter of the plaintiff namely Ms. Anevi Deshwani and it was mentioned therein for the purpose of registration only and the same was CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 3/37 DLCT010126892023 never intended to be presented in bank and the earlier security amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- lying with plaintiff was adjusted vide the last agreement, which amount was again agreed to be refunded at the time of vacation of suit property by defendant.
6. It is also the case of plaintiff that as per the last agreement dated 23.12.2022, it was agreed between parties that the defendant shall vacate the suit property after expiry of the tenancy period i.e. on 30.06.2023 and he will handover the vacant peaceful possession of suit property to plaintiff. It has been submitted that since plaintiff did not want to continue the tenancy of defendant, he had sent a notice dated 17.06.2023 to defendant asking him to vacate the suit property by 31.07.2023 and the said notice came to be replied by defendant through his counsel vide reply dated 01.07.2023. It has further been submitted that instead of vacating the suit property, the defendant in his above said reply had made some false and vexatious allegations against him and the defendant claimed in said notice that the rate of rent of suit property was a meagre amount of Rs. 22,000/- pm and he also claimed to have paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as interest free security to plaintiff, instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- as mentioned in above rent agreements, and he further claimed to have advanced an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to plaintiff as a friendly loan and also threatened to create a third party interest in the suit property and to sublet the same. It has also been submitted by plaintiff that he had even sent one reminder CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 4/37 DLCT010126892023 notice dated 22.07.2023 to defendant through his counsel asking him to vacate the suit property by 31.07.2023, but defendant had failed to vacate the same.
7. It has further been averred by plaintiff that the defendant had paid rent upto the month of June, 2023 only and he had not paid any rent thereafter and as such, the plaintiff adjusted an amount of Rs. 71,500/- out of interest free security amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards rent for the month of July, 2023 and since the defendant had not vacated the suit property and he continued to be in possession thereof, the remaining amount of Rs. 28,500/- of interest free security has also been adjusted by plaintiff towards rent for the month of August, 2023 and the defendant has still to make payment of the balance amount of Rs. 43,000/- to him towards rent for the month of August, 2023. It has been submitted that although as per Clause No. 17 of the rent agreement dated 23.12.2023, the plaintiff is entitled to charge Rs. 5,000/- as damages/penalty/charges per day, along with monthly rent, but he is not claiming the damages upto the month of August, 2023 and will claim the same w.e.f. 01.09.2023 onwards in case the defendant failed to vacate the suit property by 31.08.2023.
8. It has also been specifically averred by plaintiff that he has a cause of action for filing of the present suit; that this court has the pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 5/37 DLCT010126892023 this suit; that the dispute raised in the suit is a commercial dispute and further that his suit is within the period of limitation.
9. On being served with summons on 13.10.2023, the defendant had appeared before this court along with his counsel and had also filed his written statement to the plaint, along with an application under Order 8 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC as his written statement was not filed within the stipulated period of 30 days. However, while the above application of defendant seeking condonation of delay in filing of his written statement was still pending, this court vide its order dated 22.07.2024 had directed the defendant to deposit the arrears to rent @ Rs. 71,500/- w.e.f. July, 2023 (month included) upto July, 2024 within two weeks from the date of said order as it was observed by this court that the defendant had not paid any rent to plaintiff since July, 2023. The above arrears of rent were directed to be deposited by defendant in court in the form of a FDR.
10. However, despite being so directed and further despite being granted sufficient time to comply with the said order, the defendant failed to deposit the arrears of rent for the above said period and at the above said rate with this court and hence, vide order dated 09.10.2024, this court had struck of his defence and had also specifically observed that his written statement shall not be considered to be a part of the record. The matter was then fixed by the court for evidence of the plaintiff.
CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 6/37DLCT010126892023
11. It is necessary to mention here that arrears of rent at the above said rate were inadvertently directed to be deposited by court w.e.f. the month of July, 2023 as it was the admitted case of plaintiff that he had already adjusted the security amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- against rent for the month of July, 2023 and also partly against the rent for the month of August, 2023. However, since the defendant failed to comply with the said order, the above mistake becomes irrelevant.
12. The plaintiff has examined himself on record as PW1 and he has tendered his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit Ex. PW1/A on 20.12.2024 and he also tendered and relied upon the following documents:-
1) Copy of sale deed 02.12.1999 in respect to the suit property as Ex.PW1/1 (original thereof has also been filed on record earlier by plaintiff on 23.09.2023);
2) Copy of Site plan of the suit property as Ex.PW1/2 (even original of this document stood filed earlier along with the original sale deed);
3) Copy of certified copy of rent agreement dated 11.07.2020 as Ex.PW1/3 (certified copy of the document stood already filed on record on 23.09.2023);
4) Copy of certified copy of rent agreement dated 12.10.2021 as Ex. PW1/4 (certified copy of the document stood already filed on record on 23.09.2023);
5) Copy of rent agreement dated 23.12.2022 as Ex. PW1/5 (original thereof has already been filed on record on 23.09.2023);CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 7/37
DLCT010126892023
6) The bank transaction details of daughter of deponent from 01.12.2022 to 31.12.2022 as Ex.PW1/6 (exhibited subject to filing of a certificate/affidavit regarding its authenticity);
7) The bank transaction details of son of deponent from August to December, 2022 as Ex.PW1/7 (exhibited subject to filing of a certificate/affidavit regarding its authenticity);
8)The bank transaction details of daughter of deponent for different periods as Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/12 (exhibited subject to filing of a certificate/affidavit regarding their authenticity);
9) Notice dated 17.06.2023 sent by plaintiff as Ex.PW1/13 and reply dated 01.07.2024 sent thereto by Advocate for defendant as Ex.PW1/14; and
10) Office copy of legal notice dated 22.07.2023 as Ex.PW1/15.
11) Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (the IEA) regarding authenticity of computerized printouts of bank statements of his daughter and son as Mark-A. It is necessary to mention here that the above certificate Mark-A was tendered in evidence by plaintiff in his further examination-in-chief recorded on 22.01.2025 and though, an adjournment was sought earlier by Ld. Counsel representing the plaintiff for taking steps to file the said certificate on record, as he was under an impression that the same was not so filed, but it was later on stated that it stood already filed on record.
13. Besides himself, the plaintiff has also examined on record his son Sh. Vicky Daswani as PW2 and examination-in-chief of this witness was also tendered through an affidavit Ex.PW2/A. CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 8/37 DLCT010126892023 PW2 has tendered and relied upon the following documents during his statement:-
(1) The bank statement of his account no. 061001537218 being maintained with ICICI Bank, which was already Ex.PW1/7. (Inadvertently mentioned in his evidence affidavit as PW2/1).
(2) The bank statements of his sister Anny Daswani having account no.662701506333, which were already Ex.PW1/6 & and Ex.PW1/8 to PW1/12. (Inadvertently mentioned in evidence affidavit as PW2/2 (colly).
(3) Certificate under Section 65B of the IEA given by him regarding authenticity of above bank statements as Ex.PW2/3, which was earlier marked as Mark-A during the statement of PW1.
14. Since the written statement of defendant was not formally taken on record due to the fact that his defence stood struck of on account of non-compliance of the order dated 22.07.2024 of this court directing him to deposit the arrears of rent for the above said period, no evidence by defendant could have been led in this case to counter the claim of plaintiff.
15. It is necessary to mention here that none had appeared on behalf of defendant before this court on date 22.01.2025 when further examination-in-chief of PW1 as well as the statement of PW2 were recorded, and also on few subsequent dates, and hence, the cross-examinations of both the above PWs have been recorded as 'Nil. Opportunity given'. It is also necessary to mention here that though Ld. Counsel for defendant had been appearing in this case before the above dates and even thereafter, CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 9/37 DLCT010126892023 but still no application was filed on behalf of defendant seeking recalling of the above PWs for the purpose of cross-examination.
16. However, an application under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Section 151 CPC came to be lateron moved on behalf of defendant seeking rejection of the plaint on ground that the plaintiff had not initiated Pre-Institution Mediation and settlement proceedings before filing of the present suit, which were mandatory as per the said Section. The reply of plaintiff to the said application was taken on record and since the application was filed when final arguments stood already advanced, the said application was kept pending for disposal along with the main suit itself.
17. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Tarun Gahlot, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. Counsel representing the defendant. I have also carefully perused the case record, including the written submissions which have been filed on behalf of the defendant.
18. It is the vehement contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant that the plaintiff had not complied with provisions of Section 12- A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and had not resorted to the process of Pre-Institution Mediation, as provided for by the said Section, which was mandatory for the plaintiff and because of his failure to do so, the plaint of this suit is liable to be rejected and the suit is liable to be dismissed. He has also referred to and CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 10/37 DLCT010126892023 relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Patil Automotion Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, 2022 SCC Online SC 1028 and also that of the Hon'ble High Court in case of Chandra Kishore Chaurasia Vs. R.A. Perfumery Works Private Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529 in support of his above submissions. It is further his contention that though in terms of the provisions of above said Section and the above judgments, the plaintiff could have been exempted by this court from initiating the Pre-Institution Mediation in case of urgency or if any urgent relief was being sought by him, but facts of the case, as stated above and as on record of the court, do not make out a case where any urgent relief was actually sought by plaintiff. It is also his submission that mere filing of an application by plaintiff under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking grant of an ad-interim ex-parte relief of temporary injunction is not sufficient to exempt the plaintiff from complying with the said requirement or for dispensing with the same as this application was never pressed for disposal by the plaintiff or even taken up by the court. It is further the contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant that the plaintiff should have sought the specific permission or exemption from this court from complying with the said requirement of Pre- Institution Mediation, which he had failed to do.
19. Per Contra, it is the contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that though there is no doubt that the provisions of Section 12-A CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 11/37 DLCT010126892023 of the above said Act regarding the Pre-Institution Mediation are mandatory to be complied with by a plaintiff, but the same are not required to be complied with in cases where any urgent interim relief has been contemplated by the plaintiff. It is also his submission that even in the above said cases being relied upon by Ld. Counsel for defendant, it has been specifically held by their Lordships that in a case where an urgent interim relief is contemplated by a plaintiff, then there is no requirement on his part to approach the Mediation Centre for amicable settlement of disputes between parties before institution of the suit. It is further his submission that there was no requirement on the part of plaintiff to seek any exemption from this court from complying with the said provision as the plaintiff had already sought an urgent interim relief in the form of an injunction restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit property.
20. It is also his submission that the question whether a suit can be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC due to non- compliance of the above provisions contained in Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act or it should be kept in abeyance directing the parties to first explore the possibility of settlement by instituting mediation is still pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of the order dated 07.02.2025 passed in SLP (C) No. 2753/2025 titled as Novenco Building & Industry A/S Vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 12/37 DLCT010126892023 Anr. arising out of the final judgment and order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
21. In the case of Patil Automation Private Limited (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in clear terms that compliance of Section 12-A of the above said Act with regard to Pre-Institution Mediation by a plaintiff is mandatory w.e.f. 20.08.2022 and failure of a plaintiff to do so must result in rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, it was also held by their Lordships in the said case that the above process was not necessary to be resorted to in a case where an urgent relief was being contemplated and being sought by the plaintiff. The relevant propositions of law laid down in said case are being reproduced herein below:-
"72. We may sum-up our reasoning as follows:
The Act did not originally contain Section 12A. It is by amendment in the year 2018 that Section 12A was inserted. The Statement of Objects and Reasons are explicit that Section 12A was contemplated as compulsory. The object of the Act and the Amending Act of 2018, unerringly point to at least partly foisting compulsory mediation on a plaintiff who does not contemplate urgent interim relief. The provision has been contemplated only with reference to plaintiffs who do not contemplate urgent interim relief. The Legislature has taken care to expressly exclude the period undergone during mediation for reckoning limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. The object is clear. It is an undeniable reality that Courts in India are reeling under an extraordinary docket explosion. Mediation, as an Alternative Dispute Mechanism, has been identified as a workable solution in commercial matters. In other words, the cases under the Act lend themselves to be resolved through mediation. Nobody has an absolute right to file a civil suit. A civil suit can be barred absolutely or the bar may operate unless certain conditions are fulfilled.
Cases in point, which amply illustrate this principle, are Section 80 of the CPC and Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 13/37
DLCT010126892023 The language used in Section 12A, which includes the word 'shall', certainly, go a long way to assist the Court to hold that the provision is mandatory. The entire procedure for carrying out the mediation, has been spelt out in the Rules. The parties are free to engage Counsel during mediation. The expenses, as far as the fee payable to the Mediator, is concerned, is limited to a one-time fee, which appears to be reasonable, particularly, having regard to the fact that it is to be shared equally. A trained Mediator can work wonders. Mediation must be perceived as a new mechanism of access to justice. We have already highlighted its benefits. Any reluctance on the part of the Court to give Section 12A, a mandatory interpretation, would result in defeating the object and intention of the Parliament.
The fact that the mediation can become a non-starter, cannot be a reason to hold the provision not mandatory. Apparently, the value judgment of the Law-giver is to give the provision, a modicum of voluntariness for the defendant, whereas, the plaintiff, who approaches the Court, must, necessarily, resort to it. Section 12A elevates the settlement under the Act and the Rules to an award within the meaning of Section 30(4) of the Arbitration Act, giving it meaningful enforceability.
The period spent in mediation is excluded for the purpose of limitation. The Act confers power to order costs based on conduct of the parties."
(Emphasis Supplied)
22. In the case of Chandra Kishore Chaurasia (Supra), one of the questions before the Hon'ble High Court was that as to whether filing of an application for grant of an exemption or waiver by a plaintiff from complying with the provisions of above Section was necessary in case where he was seeking any urgent relief and whether the order passed by a Commercial Court rejecting or dismissing the plaint of a case due to non- compliance of said Section in such a case was legally correct or not. While reiterating the legal position as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Patil Automation (Supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in said case that there is CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 14/37 DLCT010126892023 no provision under the above Section requiring the plaintiff to file any such application for grant of waiver or exemption from compliance of provisions of the said Section, in a suit which involves an urgent interim relief. It is so because if a suit involves such relief, then Section 12-A of the said Act is not applicable and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to enter into a Pre-Institution Mediation. It has also been held by their Lordships in the said case that the question whether a plaintiff desires any urgent relief or not has to be decided solely by the plaintiff while instituting the suit and though the court may or may not accede to such a request of the plaintiff, but it is not relevant to determine in such a case as to whether the plaintiff was required to exhaust the remedy of Pre-Institution Mediation or not as the question whether or not the suit involves any such urgent interim relief is not contingent on whether the court accedes to the request of plaintiff for such interim relief. The relevant observations made by their Lordships in the said case are also being reproduced as under:-
" 27. The question whether the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are mandatory, is no longer res integra. In Patil Automation Private Limited and Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are mandatory and failure to comply with the same would entail rejection of the plaint. However, in the present case, the question whether the provisions under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are mandatory or not is not in issue; the point for consideration is whether the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are applicable to the suit instituted by the appellant.CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 15/37
DLCT010126892023
28. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 reads as under: ...........................
29. A plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 indicates that the institution of a suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief, is proscribed unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre- institution mediation in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. There is no ambiguity that a suit, which contemplates urgent interim relief, is excluded from the rigor of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Thus, a plaintiff seeking to institute a suit involving urgent interim relief(s) is not required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation.
30. The contention that it would be necessary for the plaintiff to file an application seeking exemption from the provisions of Section 12A 2022 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is unmerited. This Court cannot accept the said contention for several reasons.
31. First of all, there is no provision under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 that requires the plaintiff to make any such application in a suit which involves urgent interim reliefs. As stated above, if the suit involves urgent interim relief, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is inapplicable and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to enter into a pre- institution mediation.
32. Second, a suit, which does not contemplate urgent interim relief, cannot be instituted without exhaustion of pre-institution mediation, as required under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. As noted above, the Supreme Court has held that the said provision is mandatory and it is compulsory for a plaintiff to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation, in accordance with the rules before instituting a suit. The Court has no discretion to exempt a plaintiff from the applicability of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is not permissible for the court to pass an order contrary to law; therefore, an application seeking exemption from engaging in pre-institution mediation, in a suit that does not involve urgent interim reliefs, would not lie.
33. This Court also finds it difficult to accept that a commercial court is required to determine whether the urgent interim reliefs CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 16/37 DLCT010126892023 ought to have been claimed in a suit for determining whether the same is hit by the bar of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The question whether a plaintiff desires any urgent relief is to be decided solely by the plaintiff while instituting a suit. The court may or may not accede to such a request for an urgent interim relief. But that it not relevant to determine whether the plaintiff was required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation. The question whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is not contingent on whether the court accedes to the plaintiff's request for interim relief.
34. The use of the words "contemplate any urgent interim relief"
as used in Section 12(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are used to qualify the category of a suit. This is determined solely on the frame of the plaint and the relief sought. The plaintiff is the sole determinant of the pleadings in the suit and the relief sought.
35. This Court is of the view that the question whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is to be determined solely on the basis of the pleadings and the relief(s) sought by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff seeks any urgent interim relief, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not exhausted the pre-institution remedy of mediation as contemplated under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
....................
39. It is apparent from the above that the Supreme Court was also of the view that compulsory mediation is foisted only on a plaintiff who does not contemplate urgent interim relief. It is implicit that it is only the plaintiff, that can contemplate the relief that it seeks in a suit. And, pre-institution mediation is necessary only in cases where a plaintiff does not contemplate urgent interim relief."
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. However, subsequently, in the case of Yamini Manohar Vs. TKD Keerthi, SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 32275/2023 decided on 13.10.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the courts should consider and examine the nature of urgent relief being claimed by a plaintiff, in light of the subject matter of suit, CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 17/37 DLCT010126892023 to find out and determine if the said relief is actually available or contemplated by the plaintiff and the same should not have been claimed by plaintiff as a disguise or as a mask to wriggle out of the provisions of Section 12-A of the above said Act or to bypass the same. The relevant observations made by their Lordships in the said case are also being reproduced herein below:-
"7. We are of the opinion that when a plaint is filed under the CC Act with a prayer for an urgent interim relief, the commercial court should examine the nature and the subject matter of the suit, the cause of action, and the prayer for interim relief. The prayer for urgent interim relief should not be a disguise or mask to wriggle out of and get over Section 12A of the CC Act. The facts and circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Non-grant of interim relief of the ad- interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and examination, will not justify dismissal of the commercial suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code; at times, interim relief is granted after issuance of notice. Nor can the suit be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, because the interim relief, post the arguments, is denied on merits and on examination of the three principles, namely, (I) prima facie case, (ii) irreparable harm and injury, and (iii) balance of convenience. The fact that the court issued notice and/or granted interim stay may indicate that the court is inclined to entertain the plaint."
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. The question whether a suit is required to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC due to non-compliance of provisions of Section 12-A of the above said Act or the same should be kept in abeyance, while directing the parties to first explore the possibility of settlement by instituting mediation at that stage, now stands reserved for reconsideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Novenco Building & Industry A/S (Supra) being relied by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. However, till the said question is reconsidered, it has to be taken that the compliance of said CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 18/37 DLCT010126892023 provisions by a plaintiff and resorting to Pre-Institution Mediation is necessary in terms of the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Patil Automation (Supra) and the same must result in dismissal of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the observations made to this effect by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case have not been stayed or kept in abeyance vide its subsequent order dated 07.02.2025 passed in the case of Novenco Building & Industry A/S (Supra).
25. Coming back to the facts of present case, as already discussed, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC was filed by plaintiff along with the plaint itself and it was filed with a prayer to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant and his servants, agents etc. from creating any third party interest or from alienating, transferring etc. the suit property to any other person in any manner in whatsoever. However, a perusal of case file reveals that the said application was never taken up by the court for consideration or disposal and it had remained pending till now since filing of the suit and even the Ld. Counsel representing plaintiff had never asked or requested the court to take up the said application for considering his request for grant of the above interim relief against defendant, ex-parte or even after the appearance of defendant before this court on being served with summons of the suit. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on being questioned about this has submitted that since the defence of defendant came to be struck CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 19/37 DLCT010126892023 of under the above mentioned circumstances and on account of his failure to comply with directions of the court regarding deposit of arrears of rent, the said application could not be pointed out for disposal. It is also his submission that otherwise, the said application would have been taken up for disposal or got fixed for arguments, if the written statement filed by defendant, along with his reply to the said application, were taken on record. It is further his submission that the plaintiff cannot be faulted if the said application was not taken up for disposal as the court in its wisdom had not thought it proper to grant any ex-parte ad- interim relief to plaintiff at the initial stage and had directed for issuance of notice of the said application to defendant, along with notice of the main suit.
26. It has already been discussed above, and even been specifically pleaded by plaintiff in his plaint itself, that the defendant instead of handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of suit property to him, on expiry of the agreed period of rent and in compliance with the notices given to him by plaintiff asking for the vacant and peaceful possession, had sent a reply dated 01.07.2023 containing some false and vexatious allegations and he had also threatened the plaintiff to create a third party interest in the suit property and to sublet the same to the some other person. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances and when the contents of plaint of this suit are read in entirety and in light of the other record, this court is of CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 20/37 DLCT010126892023 considered opinion that the above urgent and relief of injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from parting with possession of the suit property or from creating any third party interest therein was very much available to the plaintiff and he has also rightly contemplated and tried to avail it by filling of the above application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and it was not in his hands to make this to consider or allow his said request at the ex- parte stage or even thereafter. The above interim relief sought by plaintiff in the present case was a natural and genuine relief available to him and flowing from the above said facts and circumstances and for being claimed during pendency of said suit and till he was successful in obtaining a decree for possession against the defendant and in his favour and directing the defendant to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of suit property to him. Thus, it cannot be said or held that the above relief claimed by him in the said application was a sham relief or it was just a disguise or mask to bypass the mandatory provisions of Section 12-A of the above said Act.
27. Therefore, it is being held that the above relief was very much available to plaintiff and he has rightly contemplated and sought the same from this court and since this relief was of an urgent nature and required him to immediately approach this court for grant of the said relief, the non-resorting to Pre- Institution Mediation process by him before institution of the present suit was not at all required and the said provision was not CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 21/37 DLCT010126892023 meant to be complied with by him in a case like this. Hence, the non-resort to the Pre-Institution Mediation process by plaintiff in present case is held to be not fatal and the present suit filed by him cannot be dismissed and the plaint thereof cannot be rejected. The application dated 30.04.2025 filed by defendant seeking rejection of the plaintiff and dismissal of the suit, thus, deserves to be dismissed.
28. Coming to merits of the case, as already discussed, the plaintiff in support of his case and claim made in the present suit has examined on record total two witnesses and he himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and also examined his son Sh. Vicky Daswani as PW2. It is observed that though PW2 in his evidence affidavit Ex.PW2/A has claimed himself to be well aware about facts of the present case, but he has not made any depositions at all regarding the facts and he appears to have been examined on record merely for tendering in evidence his bank account statement as Ex.PW2/1 and that of his sister as Ex.PW2/2 (colly), which document already stood exhibited and tendered in evidence through the testimony of PW1 as PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/6 & Ex.PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/12 respectively. Besides these statements, PW2 has also tendered in evidence a certificate regarding authenticity of these statements as Ex.PW2/3.
29. Though, none of the entries made in the above bank account statements of son and daughter of plaintiff are found to CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 22/37 DLCT010126892023 be of the exact amounts of monthly rents mentioned in the above rent agreements Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5, as these are of the sums spreading between Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- only, but still these entries can be taken as a corroborative evidence to substantiate the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the part payments of rents made by defendant to the plaintiff in the above bank accounts of children of plaintiff. The authenticity of these bank account statements have been established through the certificate Ex. PW2/3 given by PW2 Sh. Vicky Daswani under the provisions of Section 65B of the IEA.
30. Beside the above, the plaintiff/PW1 in his above evidence affidavit has also fully supported his case as set up in the plaint and he has made specific depositions almost on the lines of plaint regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the defendant, the induction of defendant as a tenant in the suit property since September, 2020, the renewal of tenancy of defendant for two more durations and also the execution of above three rent agreements dated 11.07.2020, 12.10.2021 and 23.12.2022 and exhibited as Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 respectively (it is observed that at one place even in his evidence affidavit, the date of execution of rent agreement Ex.PW1/3 is found to have been wrongly typed/mentioned as 11.08.2020).
CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 23/37DLCT010126892023
31. The oral testimony of plaintiff as corroborated by the contents of above rent agreements duly establishes that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property initially for the period w.e.f 01.09.2020 to 31.08.2021 by the rent agreement Ex. PW1/3 and at a monthly rent rate of Rs. 28,000/- per month, exclusive of the electricity and other charges, and he had also deposited an interest free and refundable security of Rs. 56,000/- with plaintiff, which was to be handed over back to him at the time of vacating the said premises. Further, it also stands established from the oral deposition of plaintiff and the contents of the two subsequent rent agreements Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5 dated 12.10.2021 and 23.12.2022 respectively that the tenancy of defendant in respect to the said premises had continued and was extended further for two more terms of 11 months each, subject to the terms and conditions contained in these agreements and for the durations from 01.09.2021 to 31.07.2022 and 01.08.2022 to 30.06.2023 respectively. It is also clear from the terms of these rent agreements that the monthly rent to be paid by defendant to the plaintiff was enhanced from Rs. 28,000/- per month to Rs. 65,000/- per month vide the rent agreement Ex. PW1/4 and it stood further enhanced from Rs. 65,000/- per month to Rs. 71,500/- vide the rent agreement Ex. PW1/5 and even the amount of refundable security was enhanced from Rs. 56,000/- of the initial rent agreement Ex. PW1/3 to Rs. 1,00,000/- vide the second rent agreement Ex. PW1/4, though, in the third rent agreement Ex. PW1/5, this amount had remained CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 24/37 DLCT010126892023 same i.e Rs. 1,00,000/-. Again, the above enhanced rates of rent were exclusive of the electricity and other charges and the security amount was also meant to be refunded at the time of vacation of the suit property by defendant.
32. The evidence on record also reflects that in accordance with the terms contained in rent agreement Ex. PW1/5, the tenancy of the defendant was to expire on 30.06.2023 and he had even undertaken to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on expiry of the tenancy. However, it is the claim of plaintiff that the defendant failed to hand over the vacant physical possession of the suit property to him on expiry of the term of his tenancy on 30.06.2023 as per the rent agreement Ex. PW1/5 and hence, he had given a notice dated 17.06.2023 Ex. PW1/13 to the defendant requesting him to vacate the said property upto 31.07.2023, failing which to face appropriate legal action therefor. Though, the plaintiff has not filed on record any proof of dispatch of the said notice to defendant or its receipt by the defendant, but the evidence on record duly establishes that the said notice was received by defendant and he had even sent his reply dated 01.07.2023 Ex. PW1/14 to the said notice through his counsel. Since the defendant did not vacate the suit property on expiry of the term of his tenancy as per the rent agreement Ex. PW1/5 and even after receipt of the notice Ex. PW1/13 and he had chosen to give a reply Ex. PW1/14 thereto, which contain some false and CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 25/37 DLCT010126892023 frivolous submissions as per plaintiff, the plaintiff had then served one other legal notice dated 22.07.2023 Ex. PW1/15 upon defendant giving him a reminder that his tenancy stood already expired on 30.06.2023 and he has to vacate the said property by 31.07.2023, as also earlier requested through the notice Ex. PW1/13. However, no proof of dispatch or service of this notice upon defendant has been brought in evidence by the plaintiff and hence, it cannot be held that the said notice was actually delivered to or received by defendant. In any way, it is the admitted case of plaintiff that the defendant did not vacate the suit property even after service of this notice.
33. Since the term of tenancy of defendant stood already expired on 30.06.2023 by efflux of time in terms of the rent agreement Ex.PW1/5, he was bound to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of suit property to plaintiff on expiry of the said term. However, he failed to handover the said possession to plaintiff on 01.07.2023 or even by 31.07.2023, as requested or demanded by plaintiff through the above notice Ex.PW1/13. Rather, he had chosen to give the reply Ex.PW1/14 to said notice and though, he admitted his tenancy under the plaintiff in respect to the suit property in this reply, but he also claimed therein that he was inducted as a tenant in the said property in the month of August, 2020, initially on a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- pm, excluding the electricity and other charges, and he also claimed that he had paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to plaintiff as an CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 26/37 DLCT010126892023 interest free refundable security. It was further submitted by him in the said reply that he had invested a huge amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- in his business being conducted from the said shop and he had cleared the rent upto the month of August, 2021, when on 09.08.2021 the plaintiff asked him to increase the rent to Rs. 50,000/- pm. It is also his submission that when he told the plaintiff that rent could be increased @ 10% only as per law, which comes to Rs. 22,000/- pm, the plaintiff refused to accept this rate of rent and threatened him to forcibly disposes from the said shop and these threats were even extended to him on 10.08.2021.
34. The defendant further claimed in his above reply that finding no other alternative, he had sent a complaint dated 13.08.2021 to the local SHO on 17.08.2021 and he had also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff, titled as Samshad Vs. Sh. Kewal, bearing CS No. 1787/2021, and despite knowing about the pendency of said suit, the plaintiff did not appear therein and was proceeded ex-parte. He further claimed in the said reply that, however, the plaintiff had assured him to keep paying rent @ Rs. 22,000/- pm and not to vacate the tenanted premises and he also claimed that he has already paid rent at this rate to plaintiff upto the month of June, 2023. He also claimed in the said reply that from time to time, the plaintiff had also been borrowing some money from him and thus, the plaintiff had taken a friendly loan for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from him, CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 27/37 DLCT010126892023 which amount the plaintiff is liable to return back to him along with the security amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-.
35. Regarding the execution of above rent agreements, it is was the stand taken by defendant in his above reply that at the time of his being inducted as a tenant in the said property, the plaintiff had obtained his signatures on some documents for the purpose of execution of a rent agreement and also for execution of the receipt of security amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, but he never handed over any copy of rent agreement or receipt to him and thus, the above rent agreements are forged and fabricated documents.
36. As already discussed, the defendant had also filed one written statement in the present case, which was directed not to be considered as a part of the record because of his non- compliance to the order of this court directing to deposit the arrears of rent. It is observed that submissions on similar lines of the above reply Ex.PW1/14 were also made by defendant in his above written statement and it was further stated therein that the above civil suit came to be withdrawn by him vide order dated 10.10.2023 of the court concerned. He had also placed on record certified copies of some documents pertaining to the said case.
37. However, since the defence of defendant stood already struck of by this court and his above written statement was CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 28/37 DLCT010126892023 directed not to be considered as a part of the case record, no evidence has or could have been led by defendant in support of the said submissions or to substantiate his said defence. Even otherwise, if the said written statement of defendant was considered to be a part of the case record and he was also permitted to lead evidence in his defence, his depositions with regard to the above said claims or defences could not have been considered in evidence by this court in view of the provisions contained in Sections 94 & 95 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (the BSA), which are equivalent to the provisions of Sections 91 & 92 of the IEA, which provide that when the terms of any such contract or grant etc. have been reduced to the form of a document or/and the said document has been proved in evidence, then no oral evidence can be given in proof of the terms of said contract or grant etc. Hence, the submissions or claim of defendant as contained in his above said reply regarding the rate of rent being Rs. 22,000/- pm only or the amount of security being Rs. 4,00,000/- and further that the plaintiff had also taken a friendly loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from him cannot be accepted by this court being contrary to the contents of above said rent agreements Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5.
38. As also discussed above, the cross-examination of plaintiff, and even of his son/PW2, had to be recorded as nil as the defendant or his counsel had not come forward to cross examine them. Though, these witnesses could not have been CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 29/37 DLCT010126892023 cross examined by defendant or his counsel on the above lines of defence taken by defendant in his reply Ex.PW1/14 to the notice Ex.PW1/13 given by plaintiff, but certainly they could have cross examined both these witnesses with regard to the correctness or trustworthiness of the depositions made by them or regarding the genuineness or the veracity of documents being tendered in evidence by them. However, due to the fact that they have not been cross examined at all by the defendant or his counsel, the entire depositions made by the plaintiff in his above evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A and regarding the other aspects of tenancy in respect to the suit property have gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebuted and there is no ground or reason available to this court for not accepting the same. Moreover, the oral testimony of plaintiff as contained in the said documents also stands fully substantiated by the above documents brought in evidence by him. Though, amongst other documents, the plaintiff had also filed on record the original sale deed dated 02.12.1999 executed in his favour in respect to the said property as well as the site plan thereof showing the said property/shop in red colour and he has brought in evidence copies thereof as Ex.PW1/1 & Ex.PW1/2 respectively, but since the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not found disputed in the above reply of defendant and he could not have challenged the title of plaintiff in respect to the said property/shop and was estopped from doing so in terms of provisions contained Section 122 of the BSA, 2023, which are equivalent to Section 116 of the IEA, CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 30/37 DLCT010126892023 his above sale deed or the title of plaintiff in respect to the suit property becomes irrelevant.
39. Hence, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the possession of defendant in respect to the suit property or the shop in question amounts to an illegal and unlawful possession w.e.f. 01.08.2023 as he was bound to handover the physical vacant possession of the said property to plaintiff by 31.07.2023, in terms of the above notice Ex.PW1/13 given by plaintiff to him and further since the term of his tenancy stood already expired by efflux of time. Thus, the plaintiff is held entitled to seek vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property or above shop bearing No. 2325-26 (new), on the ground floor and measuring 11.66 sq. yds., without roof rights, built on freehold land situated at situated at Teliwara, Bahadurgarh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 and as shown in red in colour in site plan Ex.PW1/2.
40. Now coming to the question of payment or recovery of arrears of rent or of the refund/adjustment of security amount, it is the admitted case of plaintiff, as per averments made in para 8 of the plaint and depositions made in para 9 of the evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A, that rent at the above said rate of Rs. 71,500/- stands paid to him by defendant upto the month of June, 2023 and he had also adjusted an amount of Rs. 71,500/- from the security amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in terms of the last rent CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 31/37 DLCT010126892023 agreement Ex.PW1/5, which amount continued with him from the previous rent agreement Ex.PW1/4, against rent for the month of July, 2023 and the balance of Rs. 28,500/- of the security amount has also been adjusted by him against the rent due for the month of August, 2023 and after adjusting it, the defendant has still to pay to him an amount of Rs. 43,000/- as rent towards the month of August, 2023 and the plaintiff is being held entitled to recover the same from defendant.
41. As stated above, part rent of Rs. 28,500/- stood already adjusted by plaintiff against the security amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was lying with him and he has claimed and has also been held entitled to recover from defendant the balance rent amount of Rs. 43,000/- . In para 9 of the plaint, it is also found specifically stated by plaintiff that he is not claiming damages from defendant upto the month of August, 2023 and he will claim the same w.e.f. 01.09.2023 only, in case the defendant failed to vacate the said property even till 31.08.2023. Since the defendant did not vacate the suit property even by 31.08.2023 and he has continued with possession of the same as an unauthorized occupant, he is bound to pay the damages or mesne profits to plaintiff for illegally possessing the said property.
42. It is observed that in prayer clause of plaint of this suit, the plaintiff has prayed, inter-alia, for passing of a decree for a sum CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 32/37 DLCT010126892023 of Rs. 2,64,000/- on account of arrears of rent for the month of August, 2023. As stated above, since the plaintiff has himself submitted in para 9 of his plaint that he is not claiming any damages from defendant for the month of August, 2023 and further since only an amount of Rs. 43,000/- has been shown to be the arrears of rent for the above said month and plaintiff has even been held entitled to recover the same from defendant, his claim for the above amount of Rs. 2,64,000/- on account of arrears of rent for the month of August, 2023 cannot be accepted or allowed.
43. Besides the above, the plaintiff is also found to have claimed from defendant an amount of Rs. 2,21,500/- pm towards rent and damages w.e.f. 01.09.2023 onwards till the date of actual handing over of possession of the said property by defendant to him and it has been submitted that this amount includes the monthly rent of Rs. 71,500/- and damages @ Rs. 5,000/- per day, as provided in Clause 17 of the rent agreement Ex.PW1/5.
44. It is well settled that for calculating the amount of damages or mesne profits which a tenant can be directed to pay when his possession in respect to the suit property becomes illegal or that of a trespasser on lawful termination of his tenancy, the court has to draw a balance between claims of the landlord and tenant. The market or prevalent rate of rent in the vicinity of suit premises is one of the relevant considerations for fixing the amount of CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 33/37 DLCT010126892023 damages or mesne profits in such a case and the landlord has a right to lead evidence to this aspect and to prove the prevalent rate of rent in market by any satisfactory evidence or even to lead evidence and prove the other facts which may be helpful in ascertaining the amount of monthly damages of mesne profits, which the court may direct the tenant to pay to the landlord and which the court may consider to be a reasonable amount of damages or mesne profit in facts and circumstances of the said case. Of course, the amount of damages or mesne profits has also to be ascertained keeping in mind the existing or last rate of rent between parties in respect to the said property.
45. In the present case, as already discussed, the damages or mesne profits which have been claimed by plaintiff from defendant are @ of Rs. 5,000/- per day in terms of Clause 17 of the rent agreement Ex.PW1/5 and these are besides the monthly rent of Rs. 71,500/-. Though the above rate of damages was the agreed rate of damages decided by parties through the above rent agreement Ex.PW1/5 executed between them, but still keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances which have been brought on record during the course of trial, this court is of a considered opinion that the above amount of damages decided through the said Clause or agreement and to be paid at the rate of around Rs. 5,000/- per day, besides the monthly rent of Rs. 71,500/- payable in respect to the said premises cannot be held or considered to be the reasonable amount of damages or mesne CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 34/37 DLCT010126892023 profits and hence, the court can refuse to enforce the said clause and to grant mesne profits at the above said rate as the said Clause is unreasonable and unconscionable.
46. Thus, in light of the above background and discussion and keeping in mind the entirety of facts and circumstances and legal provisions with regard to enhancement of rent, this court considers it to be just and reasonable to award mesne profits @ Rs. 80,000/- pm to plaintiff, inclusive of the amount of monthly rent, from 01.09.2023 onwards till the plaintiff succeeds in getting the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property from defendant.
47. Since the suit property has been shown to be a shop or commercial property and the suit is based on rent agreements relating to the said shop or immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce, the present suit filed by plaintiff is a commercial dispute with the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Again, since the suit property is situated in the area of Teliwara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of this court, this court is also held to have the territorial to entertain and try the present suit and further since the annual rent in respect to the said property for claiming the relief of possession @ Rs. 71,500/- pm exceeded the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, in terms of provisions contained under Section 3(1A) of the said Act, this court has also the pecuniary CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 35/37 DLCT010126892023 jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. Again, the suit of plaintiff is also held to have been filed within the period of limitation.
48. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the suit of plaintiff is being allowed and decreed and the following decrees are directed to passed in his favour and against the defendant:-
1) A decree for possession of the suit property/shop bearing No. 2325-26 (new), on ground floor and measuring 11.66 sq. yds., without roof rights, built on freehold land situated at Teliwara, Bahadurgarh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 and as shown in red in colour in site plan Ex.PW1/2 directing the defendant to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of said suit property to plaintiff;
2) A decree for recovery of Rs. 43,000/- being the balance amount of arrears of rent for the month of August, 2023; and
3) A decree for recovery of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.
80,000/- pm, inclusive of the amount of monthly rent, from 01.09.2023 onwards till the plaintiff succeeds in getting the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property from defendant.
49. Besides the above, costs of suit as well as the Pleader Fee are also awarded to the plaintiff company as per Rules.
CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 36/37DLCT010126892023
50. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by M
K NAGPAL
MK Date:
Announced in the open court NAGPAL 2025.05.08
17:02:31
Dated: 08.05.2025 +0530
(M. K. Nagpal)
District Judge, Commercial Court-13
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi/08.05.2025
CS (Comm.) No. 1233/2023 37/37