Delhi District Court
State Of Bank Of India vs Jitender Singh Dhawan on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
COURT)-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No.43/2023
CNR No. DLWT01-000195-2023
In the matter of:
State Bank of India
A Banking Company
established under the
SBI Act of 1955
having its Central Office at
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai and
LHO at Parliament Street and
amongst others having a branch
at F-32/33 Mansarover Garden
New Delhi. ................. Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sh. Jitender Singh Dhawan
FA-361, First Floor
Mansarover Garden
New Delhi-110015.
2. Smt. Harvinder Kaur Dhawan
W/o Sh. Jitender Kaur Dhawan
FA-361, First Floor,
Mansarover Garden
New Delhi-110015. ................ Defendants
Date of filing of the suit : 07.01.2026
Date of conclusion of arguments : 03.02.2026
Date of Judgement : 16.02.2026
CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 1 of 16
Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.18,13,812 with
pendente lite and future interest @9% per annum and
cost(s) under Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Appearance:
Mr. Kaushal Kumar Nirmal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff .
Mr. Vijay Sehgal, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
JUDGEMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present commercial suit for recovery of Rs.18,13,812/- against the defendants along with pendente-lite and future interest @9% per annum, till its realization and cost(s).
2. Brief stated facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a public Sector Bank and established under the SBI Act of 1955 having its central office at Madam Cama Road, Mumbai and LHO at Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 and amongst others having a branch at F-32/33, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi and inter alia engaged in the business of banking and finance and is juristic person and can sue and can be sued in its own name. The present suit is being instituted by the plaintiff bank through Mr. Ajay Kumar Khatri, Chief Manager, who is fully conversant with the facts of the present case. He has been authorized by the Gazette Notification dated 27.03.1987.
3. It is stated that defendants had approached plaintiff bank for letting their House No. FA-361, area 3322.42 sq.ft. at ground floor, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi-110015 (hereinafter CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 2 of 16 referred to as 'premise') to State Bank of India, Ramesh Nagar Branch, New Delhi and the said offer was acceded by the plaintiff and a registered lease agreement dated 17.07.2014 was executed between the parties, as per agreed terms and conditions. Further, plaintiff paid six months rent amounting to Rs.18,13,812/- in advance to defendants, which was interest free and refundable to plaintiff by defendants before six months of expiry of first five years tenure of registered lease agreement, however, defendants had not refunded the above-mentioned advance rent, which must be repaid by defendants to plaintiff between 16.01.2019 to 16.06.2019, but plaintiff had acceded with their request keeping in view of its relations of Lessor and Lessee. Further, it is stated that in terms of lease agreement dated 17.07.2014, the plaintiff had to give a three months' notice to vacate the said premise accordingly, plaintiff bank issued notice dated 03.06.2020 of termination of lease agreement dated 17.07.2014 with request to return six months' rent advance i.e. Rs.18,13,812/- only to plaintiff on or before 02.09.2020 and defendants submitted reply to said notice of termination dated 03.06.2020 vide their letter dated 17.06.2020 and plaintiff once again wrote to defendants on dated 01.09.2020 to refund rent advanced.
4. It is further stated in the plaint that in respect of vacation of premise of Ramesh Nagar Branch, New Delhi, plaintiff had tried to contact in person the defendants, but they had refused to do so when official of its RBO-I visited the premise on 01.09.2020 and CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 3 of 16 again vide letter dated 19.09.2020 by plaintiff bank, it was reminded to defendants that possession of premise was handed over SYMBOLIC on 01.09.2020 to defendants and it was vacated on 02.09.2020 and no future rent would be paid after vacation of premise.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that defendants had vide its letter dated 24.09.2020 replied to plaintiff bank and tried to create a confusion on one typing mistake, as in this letter the advance rent was typed as security advance and plaintiff had replied the said letter to defendants vide letter dated 03.11.2020 with request to repay rent advanced, however, defendants instead of returning advance rent, sent a reply dated 21.11.2020.
6. It is further stated that defendant for the first time demanded keys of premise vide letter dated 19.01.2022 and same was handed over to defendant no.2 Smt. Harvinder Kaur Dhawan on 21.01.2022. Plaintiff bank thereafter approached the DLSA, West for pre-litigation mediation, but of no avail, hence, Non-Starter Report dated 16.02.2022 was issued. Hence, the present suit.
7. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendants and the same were duly served upon them. Joint written statement was filed by the defendants.
8. The defendants in their written statement have taken certain preliminary objections and denied the case of plaintiff on merits.
CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 4 of 16 Defendants did not deny relationship of tenant and landlord between plaintiff and defendants, handing over of keys of premise on 21.01.2022, contents of registered lease agreement and its execution, however, it is claimed that plaintiff failed to pay monthly rent to defendants from September 2020 till January 2022. It is stated that it was duly mentioned in the registered lease deed that plaintiff was entitled to seek refund of 6 months security amount only if plaintiff would have stayed in the premise for complete period of lock-in period of 10 years, which admittedly has not been case herein. It is further submitted that plaintiff in an illegal and brazen manner had froze the bank account of defendants maintained by plaintiff. It is further stated that as the keys of premise was handed over only on 21.01.2022 and this itself show malafide intention of the plaintiff. It is further stated that defendants have suffered losses due to illegal acts of plaintiff bank of not paying the due rentals and also suffered mental torture and physical agony etc. for the total sum of Rs.1,07,93,719.50/-. It is further stated that suit is devoid of any cause of action and not maintainable being not signed by a competent person and the same is based on wholly false, incorrect, vexatious, frivolous and misconceived averments and is an attempt to gain illegally and is liable to be dismissed.
9. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 16.08.2023:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs,18,13,812/- along with interest from the defendant as CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 5 of 16 alleged? OPP.
2. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff?
OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
4. Whether the suit has not been properly verified? OPD
5. Relief.
10. In order to prove its case, plaintiff bank examined authorized representative Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh as PW1 who filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief Ex PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint while relying upon copy of Gazette of India Ex.PW1/1, copy of registered lease agreement Ex.PW1/2, copy of notice dated 03.06.2020 to defendants Ex.PW1/3, copy of letter dated 01.09.2020 Ex.PW1/5, copy of vacation letter dated 02.09.2020 Ex.PW1/6, copy of letter dated 19.09.2020 Ex.PW1/7, copy of letter dated 24.09.2020 Ex.PW1/8, copy of letter dated 03.11.2020 Ex.PW1/9, copy of reply letter dated 21.11.2020 Ex.PW1/10, copy of letter dated 18.12.2020 Ex.PW1/11, copy of letter dated 21.01.2022 Ex.PW1/12 and Non starter Report dated 16.02.2022 Ex.PW1/13. He was duly cross examined by the counsel for defendant. Thereafter plaintiff closed its evidence.
11. In order to prove their case, defendants examined themselves as DW-1 & DW-2. Defendant No.1/DW-1 sought to prove letter dated 25.03.2014 Ex.DW1/1 (OSR), letter No. PREM/YM/2014/68 issued by Assistant Manager (Civil Engineer) dated 25.03.2014 issued by plaintiff bank Ex.DW1/2, CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 6 of 16 copy of letter dated 01.07.2014 issued by defendants Ex.DW1/3 (OSR), copy of letter dated 18.08.2014 issued by defendants Ex.DW1/4 (OSR), copy of letter dated 03.11.2014 issued by defendants Ex.DW1/5 (OSR), copy of letter dated 27.11.2015 issued by defendants Ex.DW1/6 (OSR), copy of letter dated
17.02.2015 vide reference No. BM/18/2015-16 issued by plaintiff along with its reply by defendants Ex.DW1/7, copy of payment receipt dated 18.02.2015 made by defendants to MCD Ex.DW1/8 (OSR), copy of letter dated 28.02.2015 issued by defendants Ex.DW1/9, copy of letter dated 29.03.2015 issued by defendants Ex.DW1/10, copy of letter dated 19.10.2015 issued by defendants Ex.DW1/11 (OSR), copy of termination dated 03.06.2020 issued by plaintiff bank Ex.DW1/12, copy of letter dated 19.09.2020 given by plaintiff Ex.DW1/14, copy of letter dated 17.08.2020 issued by defendants Ex.DW1/15, copy of letter dated 20.08.2020 issued by defendants Ex.DW1/16 (OSR), copy of letter dated 31.08.2020 issued by plaintiff Ex.DW1/17, copy of letter dated 08.09.2020 issued by defendants Ex.DW1/18, copy of letter dated 21.09.2020 issued by plaintiff bank for payment of electricity bills Ex. DW1/19, copy of letter dated 06.10.2020 issued by plaintiff bank for removal of its sign board Ex.DW1/20 (OSR), copy of rent receipts from 04.10.2020 to 04.01.2022 Ex. DW1/21 (colly) (OSR), copy of letter for demand dated 08.10.2020 Ex.DW1/22, copy of letter for demand dated 08.10.2020 issued by defendants for the estimated cost of removal of strong room Ex.DW1/23 (OSR), copy of letter for claim of payment outstanding by defendants CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 7 of 16 Ex.DW1/24, copy of letter dated 12.12.2021 Ex.DW1/25, copy of letter dated 19.01.2022 issued by plaintiff bank Ex. DW1/26 (OSR), copy of letter issued by defendants not to stop the payment of cheques of rent Ex.DW1/27, copy of letter issued by defendants Ex. DW1/28 (OSR), copy of cheque no.482731 issued by plaintiff to Amit Saroj with returning memo dated 09.05.2022 with remarked as hold marked in account for recovery of rent Mark A (colly), copy of legal notice dated 22.02.2023 issued by defendants to plaintiff bank Ex. DW1/29(OSR), copy of invoice no.88 for repairing of lift issued by JR Elevator dated 29.01.2022 Ex.DW1/30 (OSR), copies of 16 invoices for removal of strong arm and ATM and tiling work and fall ceiling Ex.DW1/31 (colly) (OSR) and copies of tax invoices issued by MCD paid by defendants Ex.DW1/32 (OSR) Defendant no.2 further examined herself as DW-2 and relied upon the documents already exhibited in the testimony of DW-1. DW-1 & DW-2 were duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
12. Having heard rival submissions of the Ld. Counsel for parties, judicial file perused. Respective pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, material on record and respective contentions of the parties taken into consideration. Issues wise findings of the court are recorded hereinafter.
ISSUE No.4:- Whether the suit has not been properly verified? OPD
13. Issue No. 4 is taken up first. Onus to prove this issue is upon the CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 8 of 16 defendant. Defendant in their written statement took objection that suit was not maintainable as the same was not properly verified and it was not signed by a competent person. It is pleaded that the person who had signed the suit and verified its contents was not properly authorized to do the same.
14. During the final argument Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that the person who verified the present suit was not properly authorized to file the present suit and therefore the suit was neither properly verified nor filed by a duly authorized person. On the contrary Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that plaintiff duly proved the authority of the person who signed and verified the present plaint and no question was asked during the cross examination of PW1 questioning the authority of the said person.
15. Present plaint was signed and verified by one Ajay Kumar Khatri S/o Sh. Kharati Lal Khatri and it was claimed that he was posted a Chief Manager in State Bank of India Mansarovar Garden Branch, Delhi. Plaintiff examined Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Satyawan Singh, the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Mansarovar Garden Branch, Delhi and he deposed to the effect that he being Chief Manager of plaintiff's bank branch was authorized for and on behalf of the plaintiff bank vide the Gazette Notification dt. 27.03.1987 and was therefore, fully empowered and authorized to institute the suit, sign and verify the plaint and other pleadings and to do such other acts and things he may deem CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 9 of 16 fit and proper in the interest of the case. He further deposed that present suit was accordingly filed by Sh. Ajay Kumar Khatri the then Chief Manager or AR of the plaintiff bank and he had been transferred and he took charge in place of said Ajay Kumar Khatri. Plaintiff's witness identified the signature of the said Ajay Kumar Khatri on the plaint. The Gazette Notification is Ex PW1/1.
16. There was no cross examination of PW1 on the above aspect.
Even no suggestion to the effect that Ajay Kumar Khatri was not authorised to sign, verify and institute the plaint or that he was not the Chief Manager, was given to PW1. It appears that defendant did raise this objection half-heartedly and did not pursue it seriously. In the matter of United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar AIR 199 SC3, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the suit filed by a Public Corporation like Bank, public interest should not be allowed to be defeated on the basis of mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. In the present case, defendants are admittedly not denying the relationship of landlord-tenant, execution of lease agreement etc. In view thereof, the issue No. 4 is hereby decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.3:- Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
17. Onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. It is no longer res integra that maintainability of a suit and sustainability of claim CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 10 of 16 made in the suit are two different concepts. A suit may be maintainable but it is quite possible that claim made in the suit may not be granted after trial for failure of the plaintiff to prove his case. In the present case defendant has not been able to explain how the present suit is not maintainable. If defendant thinks that plaintiff is not entitled to relief claimed in the suit and therefore it is not maintainable then it must be said objection qua maintainability of the suit is not sustainable. In any case defendant has not pointed out how the suit is not maintainable in law therefore, issue No. 3 is hereby decided against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 18,13,812/- along with interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP.
ISSUE No. 2:- Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff? OPD
18. Both issues are taken up together as they are interlinked and intertwined. Onus to prove issue No.1 is upon plaintiff whereas onus to prove issue No.2 is upon defendant. It is not in dispute that premise bearing FA-361, Ground Floor, Mansarovar Garden, Delhi is owned by the defendants and was under the lease of the plaintiff. It is immaterial to know who approached for creation of lease. It is also not in dispute that Regd. Lease Agreement dt 17.07.2014 was executed between the parties in respect of aforesaid premise. It is not in dispute that plaintiff had paid six months' rent in advance amounting to Rs. 18,13,812/- to the defendants and present suit seeks recovery of the said amount CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 11 of 16 from the defendants along with interest.
19. Defendants are contesting the present suit on various grounds primarily which includes plaintiff's alleged liability to pay amount to defendants under various heads amounting to Rs. 1,07,93,719.50/-. Defendants have neither prayed for set-off nor have filed any counter claim in the present suit. Defendants' have preferred their own separate suit in the year 2025 to recover the said amount of Rs. 1,07,93,719.50/-. Said suit is also pending disposal before this court and is at the stage of PE. It is not clear whether the amount of Rs. 1,07,93,719.50/- was arrived at after adjusting the advance rent amounting to Rs. 18,13,812/- or requires adjustment. The various heads under which plaintiff is alleged to be liable to pay are:-
Particulars of Demand and Expenses Amount (in Rs) Outstanding Rent from Sept, 2020 to Jan, 2022 Rs. 64,23,917/-
Life Repairing Charges Rs. 1,71,000/-
Removal of Strong Room Rs. 3,92,000/-
ATM removal Charges Rs. 1,00,000/-
Repair of All the AC pipes Rs. 75,000/-
Shutter Repairing Charges Rs. 7500/-
Removal of Cover of Shutters Rs. 25,000/-
Conversion Charges Rs. 15,00,000/-
Parking Charges Rs. 7,50,000/-
Modification/alteration as per the Asking and demand Rs. 2,00,000/-
of the Plaintiff
Rent for May, 2014 Rs. 3,02,302/-
ATM tiles Bill Rs. 15,000/-
Generator diesel for last 3 years @ 20,000/- per month Rs. 72,000/-
Rent Generator for the last 6 months @ Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 60,000/-
per month
Injury/Loss to reputation as a person Rs. 5,00,000/-
CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 12 of 16
Mental Torture and Physical Agony Rs. 2,00,000/-
Grand Total Rs. 1,07,93,719.50/-
20. Aforesaid table showing alleged plaintiff's liability towards the defendants, does not show adjustment of the advance rent of 6 months which plaintiff has admittedly paid to the defendants nor has there been the pleading of the defendants that the said advance rent of Rs. 18,13,812/- stood adjusted in rent for any of 6 months prior to 02.09.2020.
21. It is settled law that legal set off/Counter claim arising out of same transaction has to be pleaded, prayed and proved on record.
However, Courts in its discretion can consider equitable set-offs if arises out of the same transaction. Plaintiff admittedly put forth aforesaid alleged legal liability of the plaintiff but did not make any prayer by way of legal set off or counter claim rather belatedly they have chosen to file separate suit pending disposal before this court. Any findings on aforesaid claims of the defendants would be required to be adjudicated in the said suit and same is not required to be adjudicated herein as defendants neither pleaded set-offs nor has filed counter claim in the present suit nor did they get any specific issue in this regard framed in the matter. It is also worth noting that the amounts claimed by the defendants in the separate suit was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court and therefore, defendants would have been well within their rights to file Counter-claim in the present suit. However, in their wisdom they chose to file separate suit hence all issues which would result into defendant's entitlement CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 13 of 16 or plaintiff's liability for aforesaid tabulated amount shall be adjudicated in the said suit, subject of course to adjudication as to whether said independent suit would be hit by provision of Order II Rule 2 CPC.
22. It is further important to bear in mind that when defendants had filed their separate suit, same was assigned to another court. The said court on noticing that connected matter between the parties was pending in another court, ordered to place the said suit before the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, West, Delhi with a request to transfer said suit to this court where the present old matter between the parties was pending, to avoid conflict of judgments. Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, West, Delhi was pleased to transfer the said suit before this Court vide its order dt. 25.01.2025 in view of the observation made by the said court. Since then both matters are proceedings before this court independently of each other and at no point of time they were sought to be tried together nor were clubbed together probably because by the time said suit came, evidence of the plaintiff was already recorded in the present matter. This fact is additional reason further strengthening the view that aforesaid tabulated demand be not adjudicated in the present matter in opposing the demand of the plaintiff herein.
23. Apart from the reasons/grounds which formed the basis of defendants' demand against the plaintiff herein, there is nothing to oppose the prayer of the plaintiff in the present suit. It has CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 14 of 16 already been noted above that defendant's entitlement set up in the aforesaid tabulated claims does not make any adjustment for six months' advance rent paid by the plaintiff, which means that defendants were ready to return the six months advance rent provided plaintiff clears their alleged liability as set out in the aforesaid table. Since plaintiff's liability to pay aforesaid tabulated demand depends on adjudication in the subsequent suit whereas defendant's liability to return the six months' advance rent is clear. Therefore, plaintiff is certainly entitled to have its six months advance rent returned. Accordingly, issue s No.1 and 2 both are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
24. Pending adjudication of the disputes raised by the defendants in their suit, plaintiff's entitlement cannot be deferred and hence, defendants should pay off their part of payment by returning the advance rent. Of course if defendants were found entitled to ( in whole or in part) what they have claimed in their separate suit, they would certainly be able to recover the same and since plaintiff is a Nationalised bank, therefore recovery under defendant's decree, if any, would not be difficult task.
25. Plaintiff has also asked for interest @18% per annum but Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289 held as follows;
"3. .........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 15 of 16 lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the cases of Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)."
26. In the given facts and circumstances and keeping in view the prevalent rate of interest the plaintiff is granted simple interest @9% per annum on the suit amount from the date of filing of suit till realization.
Relief
27. In view of the above discussion and reasoning, suit of the plaintiff is hereby allowed and a decree for recovery of Rs. 18,13,812/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Twelve Only) is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, along with simple interest @9% p.a. from 03.09.2020 till whole amount is actually realised. Parties to bear their own cost of litigation.
28. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
29. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
HARISH Digitally signed by HARISH
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.16 16:47:39
+0530
(HARISH KUMAR)
District Judge, Commercial Court-04
Announced in the open court today. West District, Tis Hazari Courts (Judgement contains 16 pages) Delhi/16.02.2026 CS(Comm.) No. 43/2023 State Bank of India v. Jitender Singh Dhawan & Anr. DoJ 16.02.2026 Page No. 16 of 16