Delhi District Court
Fcb Garment Tex India Pvt Ltd vs Sushil Kumar Garg on 7 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKRAM BALI, DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-011238-2023
CS DJ 735/23
In the matter title as :
FCB GARMENT TEX INDIA PVT LTD
IX/6773, Shyam Gali, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi - 110031.
.....Plaintiff No.1
Parasmal Bhansali and Sons (HUF)
B-288, Yojna Vihar, Shakarpur,
Delhi - 110092.
.....Plaintiff No. 2
Versus
Sushil Kumar Garg
BW - 95 B, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi- 110088. .....Defendant
Date of Filing : 06/10/2023
Date of Conclusion of arguments : : 01/04/2026
Date of judgment : 07/04/2026
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF
RENT AND UTILITY BILLS
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT :
1.Amended plaint dated 23/12/2025 was taken on record vide order dated 01/04/2026.
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 1 of 21
2. Facts of the case as stated in the amended plaint and as borne out from record are :-
3. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff no. 1 which is a a private limited company. Plaintiff no. 2 is a Hindu undivided family.
4. Sh. Fateh Chand Bhansali is authorized on behalf of plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2 (vide resolution dated 05/09/2023 to file the present case).
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is Godown located at 241-242, GT Karnal Road, Bakoli, Delhi - 110036 (herein-after referred to as suit property). Original owner of the property was Mr. Ravi Goyal.
6. Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg was tenant under Mr. Ravi Goyal.
7. Plaintiffs purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 13/07/2015. Tenancy of Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg continued under the plaintiff after purchase of the suit property from Mr. Ravi Goyal.
8. It is further case of the plaintiffs that Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg was continuing rice business in the godown i.e. suit property. -- Agreed rent was increased to Rs. 1,15,000/- per month each to the plaintiffs (Para No. 5 of the amended plaint) in the year 2021.
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 2 of 21
9. It is case of the plaintiffs that three cheques dated 07/08/2021 and one cheque dated 14/08/2021 were given by Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg to plaintiffs. Same were not honoured.
10. On 28/09/2021 an employee of the defendant informed that defendant had suddenly vanished and left the suit property unattended. Defendant left behind the scrap in the suit premises. A notice U/s 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2020 was affixed in defendant's house and that may be the probable reason of his absconding.
11. Vide possession letter dated 10/10/2021 possession was taken by the plaintiff of the suit property.
12. Legal notice dated 29/10/2021 was sent for unpaid rent, other charges and for interest but to no avail.
13. News paper publication dated 10/04/2023 was carried out by the plaintiff to sell the left over assets. No claimant came forward. Plaintiff urgently wants to remove the scrap. Following reliefs are claimed in the suit:
"PRAYER a. Pass a decree, declaring and confirming that the tenancy of the Defendant over the Suit Property has ended on 10/10/2021 and there is no right under tenancy or any other rights that the Defendant can claim on the Suit Property.
b. Pass a decree, allowing the Plaintiffs to sell the scrap of the Defendant, kept at the Suit Property and to appropriate the proceeds for recovery of legitimate CS DJ 735/23 FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 3 of 21 undisputable amount of Rs. 22,67,478/- due to the Defendant.
c. Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS
14. Report on summons dated 21/12/2023 was that Sh. Sushil Kumar Garg is not resident of given address. The premises is sealed and locked. Vide order dated 12/12/2023 application under order 5 Rule 20 CPC filed by the plaintiff was allowed.
15. Publication was carried out in news paper. Defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24/02/2024.
EX PARTE EVIDENCE
16. PW1 tendered ex-parte evidence on 24/02/2024 and closed his evidence. Following evidence was tendered :
S. No. Name of witness Documents exhibited
1. PW 1 Sh. Fateh Chand On 24/02/2024, he tendered his evidence Bhansali S/o Late Mr. by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and Bhimraj Bhansali, Age - relied upon the documents Ex. PW-1 to years 71, Director of PW-13.
plaintiff no. 1 company FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at IX/6773, Shyam Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi -
110031. (representative of plaintiff no. 2 HUF, CS DJ 735/23 FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 4 of 21 Parasmal Bhansali, HUF, Having its office at B - 288, Yojna Vihar, Shakarpur, Delhi - 110092.) EX-PARTE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE:
17. Thereafter, PE was closed on the same date. Vide order dated 12/08/2024 applications under order 7 Rule 14 CPC and Order 18 Rule 17 CPC were allowed. On 12/08/2024, ex-parte additional evidence by way of affidavit was tendered by way of examining Sh. Fateh Chand Bhansali. Following documents were tendered :-
S. No. Name of witness Documents exhibited
1. Sh. Fateh Chand Bhansali On 12/08/2024, he again tendered his ex-
(Director of Applicant no. parte additional evidence by way of 1/plaintiff no. 1 company affidavit Ex. PW1/A-1 and relied upon following documents :-
and representative of
1. the documents i.e. Sale Deed dated plaintiff no. 1 as well i.e. 13/07/2015 of suit property situated at HUF aged about 70 years Bakoli Village is Ex. PW1/A1/1 (OSR) S/o Late Bhimraj Bhansali (seven pages, colly., back to back). having office address i.e. 2. Ledger Account of plaintiff no. 1 i.e. IX/6773, Shyam Gali, FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Are Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - Ex. PW1/A1/2 (four pages, Colly.) 110031.
18. Ex-parte evidence was closed on 12/08/2024.
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 5 of 21
19. FOLLOWING POINTS OF DETERMINATION ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT :-
1. Whether plaintiffs are is entitled to declaration of confirmation that tenancy has ended?
2. Whether plaintiffs be allowed to sell scrap of defendant kept in suit property for recovery of pending dues?
3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 22,67,478/- from the defendant on account of arrears of rent and electricity expenses.
ARGUMENTS RAISED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS :
FIRST POINT OF DETERMINATION SUBMISSIONS ON POINT OF DETERMINATION WHETHER PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO DECLARATION OF CONFIRMATION THAT TENANCY HAS ENDED?
20. Qua Prayer 'a', it is submitted that declaration confirming that tenancy of the defendant over suit property has ended on 10/10/2021 is sought. It is further prayed that declaration that no right under tenancy or other rights of defendant over suit property exist.
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 6 of 21
21. In this regard, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that vide Ex. PW1/4, dated 29/09/2021, Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar who was employee of the defendant gave possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Pursuant to Ex. PW1/7, possession was accepted on behalf of plaintiffs on 10/10/2021.
22. It is further argued that negative declaration is permissible. Reliance is placed upon case titled as 'Narhar Raj & Ors. Vs. Tirupathybibi & Ors.', 2004(4)ALD136/MANU/ AP/1380/2002, decided by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court.
FINDINGS ON FIRST POINT OF DETERMINATION
23. Perusal of record shows that vide Ex. PW1/4, dated 29/09/2021, Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar who was employee of the defendant gave possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Pursuant to Ex. PW1/7. Possession was accepted on behalf of plaintiffs on 10/10/2021.
24. It is further rightly argued that negative declaration is permissible. Reliance is rightly placed upon case titled as 'Narhar Raj & Ors. Vs. Tirupathybibi & Ors.', 2004(4)ALD136/MANU/ AP/1380/2002, decided by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court.
25. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaration confirming that tenancy of the defendant over suit property had ended on 10/10/2021. Further declaration that no rights under tenancy or other rights of defendant over suit property exist is also granted.
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 7 of 21
26. This point of determination is decided in favour of plaintiffs.
SECOND POINT OF DETERMINATION SUBMISSIONS ON POINT OF DETERMINATION WHETHER PLAINTIFFS BE ALLOW TO SELL SCRAP OF DEFENDANT KEPT IN SUIT PROPERTY FOR RECOVERY OF PENDING DUES?
27. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff contends that application for interim sale under Order 39 Rule 6 CPC dated 07/12/2023 is pending and thus, sale be permitted as scrap of defendant is perishable i.e. machinery.
FINDINGS ON SECOND POINT OF DETERMINATION
28. Submissions on behalf of plaintiff that application for interim sale under Order 39 Rule 6 CPC dated 07/12/2023 is pending and thus, sale be permitted as scrap of defendant is perishable i.e. machinery are without merits. These submissions are rejected as :
29. Perusal of Ex. PW1/10 valuation report shows that machinery is sorting plant with color sorter pro, fire extinguishers, weighing scale etc. Same are not shown to be perishable in nature. Their is no urgency of interim sale. Plaintiffs would be at liberty to proceed against assets of defendant in execution as per law.
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 8 of 21
30. This Rule (order 39 Rule 6 C.P.C.) must be construed with tender regard for person in whom property is vested (defendant- herein ). Reliance for this statement of law is placed upon case titled as 'Dangar, Grant & Co. Vs. Gospel Oak Iron Co.' (1890) 6 TLR 266 wherein it was so held by Denman J. in reference to english rule [quoted in mulla civil procedure code seventeenth edition volume 4 page 326 under heading on scope of Rule 6 Order 39].
31. Order 39 Rule 6 C.P.C. as a pre requisite requires movable property to be either subject matter of suit or attached before judgment. Same is not the position in present case. So order 39 Rule 6 C.P.C. cannot be invoked.
32. As Plaintiffs would be at liberty to proceed against assets of defendant in execution as per law there is no just and sufficient case to permitted scrap of defendant to be sold at this stage.
33. This point of determination is decided against plaintiffs.
THIRD POINT OF DETERMINATION SUBMISSIONS ON POINT OF DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO RS. 22,67,478/- FROM THE DEFENDANT ON ACCOUNT OF ARREARS OF RENT AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSES?
34. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that both the plaintiffs were entitled to Rs. 1.15 lacs rent from the defendant each.
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 9 of 21 Reliance is placed upon evidence affidavit of PW1, Ex. PW1/A Sh. Fateh Chand Bansali, dated 23/02/2024, wherein in Para No. 6 it is averred that rent was 1.15 lacs in year, 2021. It is submitted that this evidence has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
35. Reliance is also placed upon evidence affidavit of PW1, Sh. Fateh Chand Bansali (as representative of plaintiff no. 2 - HUF), dated 23/02/2024, wherein in Para No. 6 it is averred that rent was 1.15 lacs in year, 2021. It is submitted that this evidence has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
36. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that even by documentary evidence, it is clear that plaintiffs were entitled to Rs. 1.15 lacs each from defendant. Reliance is placed upon Form No. 26 AS, Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.), wherein for November, 2018, amount of Rs.55,000/- was credited by Ashwani Sehgal HUF (which is on behalf of defendant). Rs.5,500/- as tax component was deducted. Similarly, for November, 2018, amount of Rs.45,000/- was credited by Sushil Kumar (which is on behalf of defendant). Rs.4,500/- as tax component was deducted. The amount credited in account of plaintiff no. 1 alongwith tax component totals upto Rs.1.10 lacs. The GST receipt Ex. PW1/12 (Colly.) shows that for two months, GST of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by FCB Garment i.e. plaintiff no. 1, thus, total rent received by plaintiff no. 1 computes to Rs.1.15 lacs, which is the sum claimed in the evidence affidavit of PW1 - Sh. Fateh Chand Bansali.
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 10 of 21
37. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that rent of Rs. 1.15 lacs was being received by plaintiff no. 2 from defendant, which is clear from Form 26 - AS, which is Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.). No GST was being paid by plaintiff no. 2.
38. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs that case of the plaintiffs that Rs.22,67,478/- are due towards the plaintiffs is clear from averment in Para No. 18 of the evidence affidavit of PW1
- Sh. Fateh Chand Bansali Ex. PW1/A, which averment has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
39. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs that even cheques of defendant i.e. Ex. PW1/2 (Colly.) are on record. Same were not honored as funds were insufficient. It is submitted that this corroborates case of the plaintiffs that amount was due towards plaintiffs from defendant.
40. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs that the Form No. 26 AS, Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.) show that for various months, rent was not paid on behalf of defendant and therefore no tax deduction for corresponding months took place.
41. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs that the amount of Rs.22,67,478/- is inclusive of interest @ 18%, arrears of rent, electricity payment (vide receipt dated 03/12/2021 by the plaintiff) and Rs. 5 lacs as damages.
BREAK UP OF RS. 22,67,478/-
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 11 of 21
42. It is clarified by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that Rs. 10,59,576,29/- are due on account of arrears of rent for the months of June, July, August, September, 10 days of October for year 2021.
43. It is further clarified by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that Rs. 5 Lacs are claimed for compensation as plaintiff has been deprived of use of suit property.
44. It is further clarified by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that Rs. 2,12,731/- a due for pending electricity charges which were paid by the plaintiff pursuant to Bill Ex. PW1/13.
45. It is further argued that interest @ 18% per annum from date of Legal Notice Ex. PW1/8, dated 29/10/2021 till filing of the suit is claimed for pre-suit interest period.
46. It is further argued that pendente-lite and future interest be awarded as per discretion of the Court.
FINDINGS ON THIRD POINT OF DETERMINATION
47. Perusal of record shows that both the plaintiffs were entitled to Rs. 1.15 lac rent from the defendant each. Reliance is rightly placed upon evidence affidavit of PW1, Ex. PW1/A Sh. Fateh Chand Bansali, dated 23/02/2024, wherein in Para No. 6 it is averred that rent was 1.15 lacs in year, 2021. It is rightly submitted that this evidence has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 12 of 21
48. Reliance is also rightly placed upon evidence affidavit of PW1, Sh. Fateh Chand Bansali (as representative of plaintiff no. 2 - HUF), dated 23/02/2024, wherein in Para No. 6 it is averred that rent was 1.15 lacs in year, 2021. It is rightly submitted that this evidence has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
49. Perusal of record shows that even by documentary evidence, it is clear that plaintiff no. 1 were entitled to Rs. 1.15 lacs each from defendant. Reliance is rightly placed upon Form No. 26 AS, Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.), wherein for November, 2018, amount of Rs. 55,000/- was credited by Ashwani Sehgal HUF (which is on behalf of defendant). Rs.5,500/- as tax component was deducted. Similarly, for November, 2018, amount of Rs.45,000/- was credited by Sushil Kumar (which is on behalf of defendant). Rs.4,500/- as tax component was deducted.
50. The amount credited in account of plaintiff no. 1 alongwith tax component totals upto Rs.1.10 lacs. The GST receipt Ex. PW1/12 (Colly.) shows that for two months, GST of Rs.10,000/- was paid by FCB Garment i.e. plaintiff no. 1, thus, total rent received by plaintiff no. 1 computes to Rs.1.15 lacs, which is the sum claimed in the evidence affidavit of PW1 - Sh. Fateh Chand Bansali.
51. Similarly rent of Rs.1.10 lacs was being received by plaintiff no. 2 from defendant, which is clear from Form 26 - AS which is Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.). No GST was being paid by plaintiff no.
2. By these documents factum that Rs 1.15 lakh were paid to plaintiff CS DJ 735/23 FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 13 of 21 no 2 by defendant is not clear. Figure of Rs. 1.10 lacs and not Rs 1.15 lakhs is reached on basis of these documents. however in view of unrebutted and unchallenged evidence affidavit of PW1, Ex. PW1/A Sh. Fateh Chand Bansali, dated 23/02/2024, wherein in Para No. 6 it is averred that rent was Rs.1.15 lacs in year, 2021 rent each to plaintiffs of Rs. 1.15 lakhs is held proved.
52. It is correct that case of the plaintiffs that Rs. 22,67,478/- are due towards the plaintiffs is clear from averment in Para No. 18 of the evidence affidavit of PW1 - Sh. Fateh Chand Bansali Ex. PW1/A, which averment has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
53. However this Court is to satisfy itself whether sum as claimed is to be granted as per law(Reliance is placed upon case decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as 'Maya Devi Vs. Lalta Parsad' reported as (2015) 5 SCC 588)) it was held therein that :
"..... The absence of the Defendant does not absolve the Trial Court from fully satisfying itself of the factual and legal veracity of the Plaintiff's claim; nay, this feature of the litigation casts a greater responsibility and onerous obligation on the Trial Court as well as the Executing Court to be fully satisfied that the claim has been proved and substantiated to the hilt by the Plaintiff. Reference to Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha vs Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, (2013) 4 SCC CS DJ 735/23 FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 14 of 21 396, will be sufficient. The failure to file a Written Statement, thereby bringing Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC into operation, or the factum of Defendant having been set ex-parte, does not invite a punishment in the form of an automatic decree. Both under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and on the invocation of Order IX of the CPC, the Court is nevertheless duty-bound to diligently ensure that the plaint stands proved and the prayers therein are worthy of being granted. . .."
54. Perusal of record shows that even cheques of defendant i.e. Ex. PW1/2 (Colly.) are on record. Same were not honored as funds were insufficient. This corroborates case of the plaintiffs that amount was due towards plaintiffs from defendant.
55. Perusal of record shows that the Form No. 26 AS, Ex. PW1/3 (Colly.) show that for various months, rent was not paid on behalf of defendant and therefore no tax deduction for corresponding months took place.
56. Plaintiffs claim amount of Rs.22,67,478/- inclusive of interest @ 18%, arrears of rent, electricity payment (vide receipt dated 03/12/2021 by the plaintiff) and Rs. 5 lacs as damages. However this Court is to satisfy itself whether sum as claimed is to be granted in entirety.
CONSIDERATION/COMPUTATION OF SUM PAYABLE TO PLAINTIFFS CS DJ 735/23 FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 15 of 21
57. In evidence affidavit of PW-1 actual break up of Rs. 22,67,478/- is not mentioned.
58. It was clarified by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that Rs. 10,59,576.29/- are due on account of arrears of rent for the months of June, July, August, September, 10 days of October for year 2021. For this purpose calculation sheet was filed during final arguments. On basis of entirety of circumstances on record there is nothing to disbelieve claim of Rs. 10,59,576.29/- on account of arrears of rent.
59. Rs. 5 Lacs as claimed for compensation on plea that plaintiffs have been deprived of use of suit property are excessive. In absence of cogent evidence to show such damages are payable same cannot be granted on mere asking as :
60. In considered opinion of the Court theoretically the consequences of a breach may be endless. However there must be an end to liability. The defendant cannot be held liable for all that follows from his breach. There must be a limit to liability and beyond that limit the damage is said to be too remote and, therefore not recoverable.
61. Nothing has been shown on record to demonstrate entitlement of Rs. 5 Lacs as damages. Plaintiffs are being sufficiently compensated by grant of costs as per law.
CS DJ 735/23FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 16 of 21
62. Perusal of record shows that Rs.2,12,731/- due for pending electricity charges which were paid by the plaintiff pursuant to Bill Ex. PW1/13, Same are liable to be granted to plaintiffs.
63. Thus plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 10,59,576.29/- (arrears of rent) plus Rs.2,12,731/- (electricity bill paid) which equals to Rs. 12,72,307 on account of principal sum due.
PRINCIPAL SUM HELD PAYABLE BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF
64. On the strength of the findings returned above plaintiffs are entitled to Rs.12,72,307/-. on account of principal sum due.
PRE SUIT INTEREST
65. Interest for a period prior to the commencement of suit is claimable either under an agreement, or usage of trade or under a statutory provision or under the Interest Act, for a sum certain where notice is given. Interest is also awarded in some cases by Courts of equity. ('Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji' [LR 65 AI 66]).
INTEREST ACT
66. Interest may be allowed from the date when the debt is payable. As per Section 3(1)(b) of Interest Act, if proceedings do not relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain CS DJ 735/23 FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 17 of 21 time, then the Court may allow interest from the date mentioned in this regard in the written notice given by the person entitled.
67. It is held that there was no stipulation in the agreement between the parties regarding payment of interest. So, present case falls under Section 3 (1) (b) of Interest Act. The plaintiff could be awarded interest from the date of written notice of demand. Legal Notice Ex. PW1/8, dated 29/10/2021 was given on behalf of plaintiff seeking interest @ 18% per annum. Same is equivalent to 'written notice' as contemplated under Section 3(1)(b) of Interest Act.
68. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim pre suit interest w.e.f. 29/10/2021.
69. Ends of justice would be sufficiently met if plaintiffs are granted interest (pre suit) @ 18% per annum i.e. from 29/10/2021 (date of legal notice) till date of suit i.e. 06/10/2023. (Reliance is placed upon case no RFA No. 12 of 2018 titled as 'Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Shreya Developwell Pvt. Ltd.', decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 05/01/2018).
PRINCIPAL SUM ADJUDGED
70. Principal sum adjudged will be the principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiff plus pre-suit interest as directed above (reliance is placed upon case titled as 'Central Bank Of India Vs. Ravindra And Ors.', decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 18th October, 2001) CS DJ 735/23 FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 18 of 21 PENDENT-LITE PERIOD
71. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 34 C.P.C. in considered opinion of the Court pendente-lite interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged(the principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiffs plus pre suit interest) will meet the ends of justice.
FUTURE INTEREST
72. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 34 C.P.C. in considered opinion of the Court future interest till realization at the rate of 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged (the principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiffs plus pre suit interest) till realization will meet the ends of justice as transaction between parties is commercial.
73. Qua this point of determination it is held that plaintiffs are entitled to :
A. Rs. 12,72,307/-. on account of principal sum due.
B. interest (pre suit) @ 18% per annum i.e. from 29/10/2021 (date of legal notice) till date of suit i.e. 06/10/2023.
C. Pendente-lite interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged(the principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiffs plus pre suit interest) D. Future interest till realization at the rate of 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged (the CS DJ 735/23 FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 19 of 21 principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiffs plus pre suit interest) PECUNIARY AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
74. The case is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court as for purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction this suit is valued as more than Rs. 3 lacs.
75. This Court has territorial jurisdiction as well as suit property is within jurisdiction of this Court.
LIMITATION
76. Arrears of rent for the months of June, July, August, September, 10 days of October for year 2021 are sought. Suit filed on 06/10/23 is thus with limitation.
RELIEF
77. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs. Plaintiffs are entitled to :
A. A declaration confirming that tenancy of the defendant over suit property had ended on 10/10/2021. Further declaration that no rights under tenancy or other rights of defendant over suit property exist is also granted.
B. Rs. 12,72,307/-. on account of principal sum due.CS DJ 735/23
FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 20 of 21 C. Interest (pre suit) @ 18% per annum i.e. from 29/10/2021 (date of legal notice) till date of suit i.e. 06/10/2023.
D. Pendentelite interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged(the principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiffs plus pre suit interest) E. Future interest till realization at the rate of 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged (the principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiffs plus pre suit interest).
78. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, after recovery of deficient Court fees, if any.
79. Pending applications if any are disposed of in terms of judgment above.
80. Copy of the judgment be sent to the defendant by Ahlmad.
81. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by VIKRAMVIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2026.04.07 16:48:34 +0530 Announced in the open Court today (Vikram Bali) i.e. 07th day of April, 2026 District Judge-02, North, Rohini Court Complex, Delhi CS DJ 735/23 FCB Garment Tex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Garg Page No. 21 of 21