Delhi District Court
National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs M/S Cost To Cost Computers And Lingo ... on 27 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-005236-2020
CS (COMM) No.331/2020
National Seeds Corporation Ltd.,
Having its office at
Beej Bhawan,
Pusa Complex,
New Delhi - 110012
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. Cost to Cost Computers
Through its Sole Proprietor
Mr. Satish Sharma
12-15-19, Deepak Building 13,
Nehru Place,
Delhi - 110019
2. M/s Lingo Implex
Through its Sole Proprietor
Mr. Munish Sharma,
Nehru Place,
New Delhi
....Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 25.11.2020
Date on which judgment was reserved : 15.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 27.04.2026
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 1 of 78
Date: 2026.04.27
18:29:19 +0530
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION, PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION, RECOVERY OF RENT & MESNE PROFITS
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for recovery of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.
2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for eviction and for recovery of possession of property bearing Commercial Plot No.14 and 15, First Floor, Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'suit property'), for permanent and mandatory injunction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and for mesne profits alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum. Originally, the Plaintiff had impleaded 4 Defendants, however, later the Plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC dated 30.11.2023 (filed on 01.12.2023) which was allowed vide order dated 01.04.2024 and vide the said order, the request of Plaintiff to amend the Memo of Parties was also allowed and Amended Plaint and Amended Memo of Parties was taken on record and number of Defendants were reduced to 2.
3. The Lease Deed dated 30.08.2012/11.09.2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Lease Deed') was executed between the predecessor of the Plaintiff and both Defendants in the capacity of lessor and lessee respectively by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 2 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:29:24 +0530 virtue of which the suit property was leased to the Defendants for a period of 9 years with effect from 26.07.2012 to be exclusively used by the Defendants on a monthly lease rent of Rs. 4,91,557/- (to be increased @ 15% after every period of 3 years) on or before 7th day of each calendar month.
4. The relief of eviction/possession was granted vide order dated 25.10.2024 by allowing application of the Plaintiff filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the decree of possession was passed accordingly directing the Defendant to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff within 30 days from 25.10.2024.
5. The Defendant filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner to which reply was filed by Plaintiff and after hearing arguments, the application was allowed vide order dated 03.12.2024 directing the Local Commissioner to measure the covered area which is 3500 sq. feet as per the Plaintiff and 2900 sq. feet as per Defendants. The Plaintiff had filed CM (M) No.4045/2024 challenging the said order before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was dismissed vide order dated 21.05.2025.
6. The Plaintiff had filed an application under Order XV A CPC for striking off the defence of the Defendant. After hearing arguments on both sides, the said application was dismissed. and the matter was adjourned for framing of issues.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 3 of 78 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:29:31 +0530 FRAMING OF ISSUES
7. On basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 02.04.2025:-
i. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent as prayed for? OPP ii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on arrears of rent? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP iii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to past and future mesne profits as prayed for? OPP iv. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on mesne profits? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP v. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of water bills as prayed for? OPP vi. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on arrears of water bills as prayed for? OPP vii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP viii. Whether the Plaintiff has concealed material facts as submitted by the Defendants in its written statement? OPD ix. Cost x. Relief
8. On 06.02.2026, learned Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that Issue No. vii in respect of relief of permanent and mandatory injunction was no NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 4 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:29:37 +0530 longer pressed for in view of Defendants having delivered possession of suit property to the Plaintiff on 27.05.2025 and therefore, Issue No.vii was deleted vide order dated 06.02.2026.
9. Vide order dated 27.04.2026, issues were re-numbered under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC as under:-
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on arrears of rent? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to past and future mesne profits as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on mesne profits? If yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of water bills as prayed for? OPP
6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on arrears of water bills as prayed for? OPP
7. Whether the Plaintiff has concealed material facts as submitted by the Defendants in its written statement? OPD
8. Cost
9. Relief
10. Report of learned Local Commissioner was received alongwith photographs and measuring tape on 12.06.2025 and with consensus of learned Counsels for parties, learned Local Commissioner was directed to NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 5 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:29:43 +0530 supply soft copy of his report to learned Counsel for both sides and he accordingly supplied the same.
11. On 05.08.2025, application of the Plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1 (5) read with Section 151 CPC for taking additional documents on record was allowed and liberty was given to the Defendants to cross-examine the witnesses of the Plaintiff in regard to those documents.
12. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed on behalf of Defendants praying for directing the Plaintiff to confirm whether area in question which was let out to Defendants and measured by learned Local Commissioner to be 3209.35 Square Feet else to restrain the Plaintiff from creating any third party interest or any kind of alteration or modification in the suit property till disposal of the present suit. The application was dismissed by order dated 05.08.2025 by observing that since the Defendant had already handed over possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff on 27.05.2025, no interest of the Defendants survived in the suit property and no such direction was maintainable and sustainable under the provision under which the said application had been filed.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
13. On 08.08.2025, Plaintiff examined PW-1 Shri Pankaj Teotia. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A. He NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 6 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:29:49 +0530 reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
(1) Board Resolution dated 06.06.2014 is Ex. PW-1/1.
(2) Certified copy of Board Resolution dated 15.05.2021 is Mark A. (3) Board Resolution dated 14.09.2023 is Ex. PW-1/2.
(4) Lease Agreement dated 30.08.2012/11.09.2012 is Ex. D-11.
(5) E-mail dated 06.05.2020 is part of Ex. D-12.
(6) Letter dated 25.04.2012 is Ex. D-1. (7) Letter dated 13.07.2012 is Ex. PW-1/3. (8) Letter dated 02.06.2020 is Ex. P-1. (9) Copy of the lease rent bill dated 01.04.2020 is Mark B.
(10) Copy of the lease rent bill dated 01.05.2020 is Mark C. (11) Copy of the lease rent bill dated 01.06.2020 is Mark D. (12) Copy of the lease rent bill dated 08.07.2020 is Mark E. (13) Copy of the lease rent bill dated 08.08.2020 is Ex. PW-1/4.
(14) Letter dated 11.06.2020 sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is Ex.
P-2.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 7 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:29:55 +0530 (15) Letter dated 27.06.2020 sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is Ex. P-3.
(16) Legal notice dated 17.08.2020 sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is Ex. D-14.
(17) Letter dated 01.09.2020 sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is Ex.
D-15.
(18) Rejoinder dated 06.10.2020 sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is Ex. D-17.
(19) Bill dated 16.01.2019 issued by the Delhi Jal Board is Ex. PW-1/5.
(20) Bill dated 15.03.2022 issued by the Delhi Jal Board is Mark F. (21) Bill dated 15.06.2021 issued by the Delhi Jal Board is Mark G. (22) Bill dated 22.11.2021 issued by the Delhi Jal Board is Mark H. (23) Water Tanker Bill dated 02.12.2019 is Ex. PW-1/6.
(24) Water Tanker Bill dated 01.04.2020 is Ex. PW-1/7.
(25) Water Tanker Bill dated 04.08.2020 is Ex. PW-1/8.
(26) Water Tanker Bill dated 02.01.2021 is Ex. PW-1/9.
(27) Water Tanker Bill dated 01.02.2021 is Mark I. (28) Water Tanker Bill dated 01.03.2021 is Mark J.
(29) Water Tanker Bill dated 01.04.2021 is Mark K. NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 8 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.04.27 18:30:01 +0530 (30) Water Tanker Bill dated 01.05.2021 is Mark L. (31) Water Tanker Bill dated 01.07.2021 is Ex. PW-1/10.
(32) Water Tanker Bill dated 02.08.2021 is Mark M. (33) Water Tanker Bill dated 01.09.2021 is Mark N. (34) Water Tanker Bill dated 01.10.2021 is Ex. PW-1/11.
(35) Water Tanker Bill dated 30.11.2021 is Mark O. (36) Water Tanker Bill dated 31.12.2021 is Mark P. (37) Water Tanker Bill dated 31.01.2022 is Mark Q. (38) Challan dated 01.02.2022 is Mark R. (39) Challan dated 06.02.2022 is Mark S. (40) Challan dated 12.02.2022 is Mark T. (41) Challan dated 20.02.2022 is Mark U. (42) Challan dated 26.02.2022 is Mark V. (43) Challan dated 05.03.2022 is Mark W. (44) Challan dated 21.03.2022 is Mark X. (45) Challan dated 21.03.2022 is Mark Y. NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 9 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:30:06 +0530 (46) Challan dated 24.03.2022 is Mark Z. (47) Challan dated 30.03.2022 is Mark AA.
(48) Letter dated 22.03.2023 is Ex. PW-1/12.
(49) Affidavit under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is Ex.
PW-1/13.
(50) Letter dated 08.05.2025 sent by the Plaintiff to Manager, Indian Overseas Bank to the Plaintiff is Ex. PW-1/14.
(51) Letter dated 06.06.2025 sent by the Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank to the Plaintiff is Ex. PW-1/15.
(52) Letter for sanction for renewal of lease premises dated 24.01.2025 is Ex. PW-1/16.
14. Original of Ex. PW-1/2, Ex. PW-1/6, Ex. PW-1/7, Ex. PW-1/8, Ex. PW-1/9, Ex. PW-1/10, Ex. PW-1/11, Ex. PW-1/12, Ex. PW-1/14 and Ex. PW-1/15 were seen and returned. It was observed that learned Counsel for Defendant had taken an objection that the Water Bills which had been exhibited and not of Delhi Jal Board but were on bills/cash memo could not be exhibited since the same had not been issued by the Plaintiff. However, only those bills/cash memo had been exhibited of which the originals had been produced by learned Counsel for Plaintiff, and it was observed that Plaintiff could not be in possession of the original bill book. It was further observed that exhibited documents would continue to be exhibited and learned Counsel for Defendants was at liberty to cross examine the witness in respect of the same as per law.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 10 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:30:13 +0530
15. PW-1 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendants on 08.08.2025 and discharged on 08.08.2025.
16. Plaintiff also examined PW-2 Shri Tanuj. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-2/A. He relied upon the following documents: -
i) E-mail dated 06.05.2020 is already exhibited as Ex. D-12.
ii) Copy of model building by laws as available on the website of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India is Ex. PW-2/1 (inadvertently mentioned as Ex. DW-2/1 in Ex. PW-2/A.)
iii) Affidavit under Section 63 of BSA, 2023 is Ex. PW-2/2 (inadvertently mentioned as Ex. DW-2/2 in Ex. PW-2/A.)
17. PW-2 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendants and discharged on 18.08.2025. On the same day, Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on the statement of learned Counsel for the Plaintiff.
18. On 24.09.2025, an application under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed on behalf of the Defendants which was allowed vide order dated 25.09.2025 and amended 'List of Witnesses' was taken on record. The application of the Defendants for deposit of FDR was also allowed vide order dated 24.09.2025.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 11 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:30:19 +0530 DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
19. Defendants examined DW-1 Shri Munish Sharma on 25.09.2025. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the Written Statement and relied upon the following documents: -
a. Copies of GST Registration Certificate of Defendant No.1 and 3 are Ex. DW-1/1 and Ex. DW-1/2 respectively.
b. Copy of letter dated 13.07.2012 is Ex. DW-1/3 which has already been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3.
c. Authorization letter is Ex. DW-1/4. d. Copy of ledger account is Ex.DW-1/4A (colly) [inadvertently
mentioned as Ex. DW-1/4 (Colly.) in the affidavit.] e. Copy of letter dated 25.04.2012 is already Ex.D-1.
f. Copy of cheque dated 13.07.2012 is already Ex.D-2.
g. Copy of receipt No. 16881 dated 18.07.2012 is already Ex.D-3.
h. Copy of letter dated 26.07.2012 is already Ex.D-4.
i. Copy of letter No. SFCI/1-1/2000-HK/Engg dated 26.07.2012 is already Ex.D-5.
j. Copy of cheque dated 27.07.2012 of Rs.16,25,000/- is already Ex.D-6.
k. Copy of receipt No.16884 is already Ex.D-7.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 12 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.04.27 18:30:27 +0530 l. Copy of cheque dated 03.08.2012 is already Ex.D-8.
m. Copy of letter dated 23.08.2012 is already Ex.D-9.
n. Copy of letter dated 10.09.2012 is already Ex.D-10.
o. Copy of lease dated 30.08.2012/11.09.2012 is already Ex.D-11.
p. Copy of e-mails dated 15.05.2020, 06.05.2020, 18.05.2020, 05.05.2020, 25.05.2020, 19.05.2020 from page No.104 to 110 are Ex. DW-1/5 (Colly).
q. Copy of e-mail dated 15.05.2020 is already Ex.D-12.
r. Copy of e-mails dated 06.05.2020, 05.05.2020, 25.05.2020, 19.05.2020, 18.05.2020, 15.05.2020, 06.05.2020, 02.06.2020, 29.06.2020, 19.09.2020, 12.10.2020, 22.09.2020, 20.10.2020, 23.10.2020, 24.10.2020, 02.11.2020, 07.11.2020, 09.11.2020, 02.11.2020, 18.11.2020 from page No.112 to 138 are Ex. DW-1/6 (Colly.) s. Copy of sheet of calculation of area is Ex.DW-1/7 (already marked as Mark PW-1/DX-1).
t. Copy of e-mail dated 02.11.2020, 24.10.2020 and 23.10.2020 are already Ex.D-13.
u. Copy of e-mail dated 07.11.2020, 02.11.2020, 24.10.2020, 09.11.2020, 02.11.2020, 18.11.2020, 02.11.2020, 23.10.2020, 12.10.2020, 22.09.2020, 19.09.2020, 18.05.2020, 15.05.2020 from page No.142 to 155 are Ex. DW-1/8 (Colly.).
v. Copy of legal notice dated 17.08.2020 is already Ex.D-14.
w. Copy of reply dated 01.09.2020 to legal notice is already Ex.D-15.
x. Postal receipt is already Ex.D-16.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 13 of 78
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date:
2026.04.27
18:30:33 +0530
y. Copy of rejoinder dated 06.10.2020 to reply to legal notice is
already Ex.D-17.
z. Report of Ld. Local Commissioner with all annexures as Ex. DW-
1/9 (Colly). [objected to by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the same cannot be adduced in evidence.] aa. The affidavit under section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is Ex. DW-1/10 bearing signature of DW-1 at point C & D.
20. It was observed that DW-1 in his affidavit of evidence had referred to Defendant No.1 to 4 in different paragraphs. However, number of Defendants as per Amended Memo of Parties are only 2. It was held that reference to Defendant No.3 and 4 would not be taken into consideration unless the context requires. Ex. DW-1/1 and Ex. DW-1/2 were allowed to be exhibited since the Plaintiff had already availed GST as a part of rent of the suit property and it was not disputed. Ex. DW-1/4A (Colly), printout of Ledger Account and is supported by Affidavit u/s 63 of BSA. Ex. DW-1/5 (Colly), Ex. DW-1/6 (Colly.) and Ex. DW-1/8 (Colly.) are printouts of e - mails supported by Affidavit u/s 63 of BSA. Ex. DW-1/7 had been sent as an attachment to the e-mail dated 22.09.2020 by the Plaintiff to e-mail ID [email protected] and was allowed to be exhibited.
21. DW-1 was cross-examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff and was discharged on 09.10.2025.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 14 of 78 BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:30:44 +0530
22. Defendants also examined Local Commissioner as DW-2. He deposed that he was appointed as Local Commissioner vide order dated 03.12.2024 to visit the property bearing No.14, 15, Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi at First Floor and to measure accurately the area of the aforesaid property which was under the possession of the Defendants.
23. DW-2 further deposed that in terms of order, he visited the aforesaid property on 27.05.2025 and measured the area in terms of order dated 03.12.2024 and prepared the site report alongwith his report. DW-2 further deposed that he had also taken the photographs of the proceedings and also sealed the tape of measurement. The site report dated 27.05.25 is Ex. DW-2/A (Colly.) (running into 9 pages) bearing his signature at point A. The photographs are already exhibited as Ex. PW-2/DX-3 (Colly.).
24. DW-2 further deposed that the report dated 12.06.25 already exhibited as Ex. DW-1/9 bears his signature at point A & B. The calculated area of the property was determined to be 3209.35 sq. feet.
25. DW-2 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff and was discharged on 19.11.2025.
26. Defendants' Evidence was closed on the statement of learned Counsel for Defendants and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
27. On 16.01.2026, Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC seeking prayer of rejecting / discarding the report dated NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 15 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:30:51 +0530 12.06.2025 submitted by learned Local Commissioner and an application for stay of the proceedings till pendency of this suit. The stay application was dismissed on the same day and CM (M) No.276/2026 against the said order and the same is still pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and is listed on 17.07.2026. However, vide order dated 04.02.2026, Plaintiff was permitted to raise objections against the report of learned Local Commissioner at the time of final arguments. The arguments were advanced against report of learned Local Commissioner at the time of final arguments and since vide this judgment, the same are being taken into consideration and the matter would stand disposed of, CM (M) No.276/2026 shall become infructuous and Plaintiff is at liberty to take the said objections in appeal, if any, filed by Plaintiff or Defendants against the present judgment.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
28. Final arguments were heard on 06.02.2026, 21.02.2026 and 20.03.2026 and both sides were given liberty to file written submissions within 2 weeks from 20.03.2026. Written submissions were filed on behalf of Plaintiff as well as Defendants.
29. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the Lease Deed between the parties is not disputed and the Defendant was paying monthly rent of the suit property admeasuring 3500 sq. ft. till March, 2020 and from April, 2020 onwards the Defendants started defaulting in paying the lease rentals and Defendants vide letter dated 02.06.2020 refused to pay the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 16 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:30:57 +0530 lease rent on frivolous grounds, while retaining the possession of the suit property and that the Plaintiff replied to the said letter asking the Defendants to pay the outstanding lease rentals and vacate the subject property if the same is not being used by them. However, the Defendants refused to pay the lease rental as well as refused to vacate the suit property. He further argued that the tenancy was terminated vide legal notice dated 17.08.2020 but the Defendants did not vacate the suit property. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff also referred to the order dated 10.03.2022 passed in CM (M) No. 1056 of 2021 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which the Plaintiff had filed against order dated 09.07.2021, whereby application under Order XV-A of CPC filed by Plaintiff was dismissed. He argued that the Defendants have taken a false defence of being handed over lesser area than the area mentioned in the Lease Deed and referred to various correspondences where the Defendants themselves stated the area of suit property to be 3500 sq. feet. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that in May, 2022, the Defendants filed counterclaim, i.e. CS (COMM) 535/22, seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,36,27,846/- towards alleged excess amount of rent paid by them by stating that 3500 sq. ft. was not handed over to them and the same was rejected. He referred to the issues framed in the present suit and submitted that the Defendants have raised a frivolous defence of not being handed over the full area of 3500 sq. feet and were also in default in payment of arrears of water bill and the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 17 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:31:03 +0530
30. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Defendants argued that Defendants were not handed over the full area of 3500 sq. feet and there is correspondence on record wherein the Defendants had been consistently raising concern for the same and also demanding measurement of suit property by the representative of the Plaintiff which was thereafter carried out in September, 2020 in presence of AR of Plaintiff and area of suit property was found to be less than 3500 sq. feet. Learned Counsel for Defendants also submitted that the defence of the Defendants is also proved by the report of learned Local Commissioner and that Plaintiff has raised wrong objections against the said report by relying on Building Bye Laws, 2016 which are not applicable for measuring the area of suit property. Learned Counsel for Defendants also argued that the Plaintiff has concealed material facts from this court by not filing many of the relevant documents and correspondence between the parties to prevent the true facts coming to the knowledge of the court in violation of Order XI Rule 1 CPC which mandates the Plaintiff to file all the documents pertaining to the subject matter of the suit at the time of filing of the suit. He also argued that the Plaintiff has deliberately not filed Site Plan of the suit property which would have brought to the fore the exact area of the suit property as well as the area of property which is not the subject matter of lease deed executed between the parties. It was also argued that the Plaintiff has been unable to substantiate its claim for mesne profits by relying on the document tendered by PW-2.
31. Learned Counsel for Defendants denied the liability of the Defendants towards water bill and submitted that the Plaintiff has failed NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 18 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:31:09 +0530 to prove the liability of the Defendants by tendering irrelevant documents from which no liability of the Defendants can be deduced.
32. Learned Counsel for Defendants also referred to Force Majeure clause contained in Clause 5 of the Lease Deed and stated that in view of outbreak of Covid-19 from April, 2020 which continued till 26th February, 2022, the Defendants are not liable to pay any rent for the said period. Learned Counsel for Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff is not entitled to receive any amount from the Defendants in view of the Defendants having already made excessive payments to the Plaintiff in view of Plaintiff not having handed over 600 sq. feet area of suit property but still receiving rent in respect of 3500 sq. feet since handing over the possession @ Rs.125/- per sq. feet per month and service tax @ 12.36% for first three years and increased by 15% after completion of three years and another 15% increase after 6 years.
33. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that reliance of Defendants on the Force Majeure Clause is unfounded and the Defendants should have vacated the suit property if it was not usable for their business. He denied that the Plaintiff concealed material facts from this court. He also argued that learned Local Commissioner did not measure the covered area of suit property properly and denied that area of suit property which was handed over to the Defendants was less than 3500 sq. feet.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 19 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:31:15 +0530
34. Rival submissions of the parties considered and perused the record very carefully.
FINDINGS
35. My issue-wise findings are given as under:-
36. Prior to giving finding on Issue No.1 to 6, it is deemed essential to give finding on Issue No.7 since the finding on this Issue will have a bearing on the other Issues.
Issue No. 7 : Whether the Plaintiff has concealed material facts as submitted by the Defendants in its written statement?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Defendants.
37. Plaintiff has submitted that the subject property was provided to the Defendants on lease vide Lease Agreement dated 30.08.2012/11.09.2012 in consideration of payment of monthly lease rent of Rs.125/- per Sq. Feet alongwith Service Tax @ 12.36% amounting to Rs.4,91,575/- on or before 7th day of each calendar month which was subject to periodic increase @ 15% after every period of 3 years.
38. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that in terms of the Lease Agreement, Defendants were also granted right to access fifth floor(terrace) of the aforesaid building for placement of generator etc. on a separate payment of Rs.10 per sq. feet for the area occupied. Further, the lease rent was to be increased @ 15% after every period of 3 years i.e. 15% after completion of subsequent period of 3 years and so on.
NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 20 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:31:22 +0530 Accordingly, the lease rent was increased to Rs.6,82,731/- which admittedly was being paid by the Defendants until March 2020. However, the Defendants, in complete contravention of their obligation, defaulted in paying the lease rent from April 2020.
39. Plaintiff has submitted that the Defendants, on receipt of the lease rent Bills for the months of April, May and June 2020, illegally and blatantly refused to pay the lease rent, while simultaneously retaining the suit property in their exclusive possession and control and keeping its goods physically vide letter dated 02.06.2020 on ground of alleged Force Majeure in view of order No.40-3/2020-DM-I(A) dated 24.03.2020, issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and Clause 5, Part III of the aforesaid lease Agreement.
40. Plaintiff has further submitted that it duly replied to the letter dated 02.06.2020 sent by the Defendants vide its reply dated 11.06.2020, wherein it refuted the contentions of the Defendants and further requested the Defendants to pay the outstanding lease rentals. Defendants were also asked to vacate the subject property if the same was not being used by them. However, Defendants, vide letter dated 27.06.2020, while expressing their intention to retain the subject property under its full possession and control, refused to pay the lease rentals to the Plaintiff.
41. Plaintiff has submitted that in its Written Statement, the Defendants have admitted and acknowledged the relationship of landlord and tenant, execution of lease deed dated 30.08.2012/11.09.2012, the possession of NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 21 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:31:28 +0530 the Defendants over the subject property, the last paid rent being Rs.6,82,731/- and the receipt of the termination notice dated 17.08.2020 sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.
42. The Defendants have raised specific defence regarding the extent of the suit property the possession of which was given to the Defendants and the applicability of the Force Majeure Clause contained in the Lease Deed.
Deficiency in area of suit property of which possession was given by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.
43. As per the Lease Deed, the rent was agreed on a per square feet basis for a total area of 3,500 sq. ft. and was subject to periodic enhancement of 15% after every three years. Clause 1 of the Lease Deed reads as:
"1. With effect from July, 2012 the lease is for a period of 9 years. The lease rent shall be increased @ 15% after completion of every 3 years i.e., 15% increase after completion of 3 years another 15% increase after completion 6th years. It is explicitly agreed between the parties that the lease can be renewed only at the option of both the Lessee and Lessor on mutually agreed terms and conditions."
44. Therefore, in terms of the said clause, the last paid rent, after giving effect to the earlier enhancement cycle, stood at Rs.6,82,731/- per month (inclusive of applicable GST), which remained applicable till July 2021. Upon completion of the next three-year cycle, a further enhancement of NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 22 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:31:34 +0530 15% became applicable with effect from August 2021, whereby the rent was increased to Rs.190.10 per sq. ft. (plus applicable GST), amounting to Rs.7,85,154/- per month for the entire leased area of 3,500 sq. ft. Thereafter, upon completion of the next three-year cycle, a further enhancement of 15% became applicable with effect from August 2024, whereby the rent stood increased to approximately Rs.218.62 per sq. ft. (plus applicable GST), amounting to Rs.9,02,901/- per month for the suit property.
45. Since monthly rent of suit property is calculated on basis of per sq. feet, the area of the suit property of which possession was handed over to the Defendants by Plaintiff is necessary to be determined. The Defendants have submitted that the area of leased portion is 3500 sq ft has been mentioned in the Lease Deed as well. However, the complete area of 3500 sq. ft. was never handed over to the Defendants since the day of inception of tenancy and that the Defendants since the day of tenancy demanded the complete possession of 3500 sq. ft. from the Plaintiff but it was never handed over to the Defendants and in regard to that, number of communications were sent by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. The Defendants have referred to the legal notice dated 06.05.2014 whereby Defendants apprised the Plaintiff that the area is short of 600 sq ft but it was of no avail.
46. The Defendants have further submitted that they had been continuously requesting the Plaintiff to measure the leased portion for a long time and after great persuasion, the Plaintiff agreed to measure the NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 23 of 78 Date:
2026.04.27 18:31:40 +0530area of the leased portion and accordingly the authorized representative of the Plaintiff visited on 21.09.2020 to measure the area of the leased portion.
47. It has been further submitted on behalf of Defendants that the rough sketch/site plan was prepared by the Defendants with the directions and in the presence of the authorized representative of the Plaintiff on 21.09.2020 and as per the measurement conducted on the said date, the area of the leased portion was measured to be 2931.7 sq. ft. but authorized representative of the Plaintiff refused to sign the same. It has been submitted by Defendants that the copy of the sketch/site plan has been duly filed by the Defendants with their Written Statement.
48. The Defendants have submitted that they demanded their excess amount from the Plaintiff which the Plaintiff received from the Defendants on the pretext of area to be 3500 sq. ft., which is not the correct area of which possession was given to the Defendants.
49. On the other hand, Plaintiff has submitted that since the inception of the lease until March 2020, the Defendants consistently paid the Plaintiff the lease rent for the entire area of 3,500 square feet, as mutually agreed upon, without any objection or protest. Furthermore, the Defendants did not raise any dispute regarding the area until the Plaintiff issued a legal notice on 17.08.2020 vide which the Lease Deed was terminated.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 24 of 78 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:31:48 +0530
50. Plaintiff has submitted that Defendants have raised frivolous defence since even before receiving the aforementioned legal notice, the Defendants, by their own admission, had acknowledged that possession of the entire leased area of 3500 square feet was delivered to them. Plaintiff has placed reliance on e-mail dated 06.05.2020, sent by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, Ex. D-12, wherein they have clearly admitted that the entire leased area of 3500 sq. ft. was in their possession, fully enjoyed by them, and under their undisputed control since the inception of the lease. The relevant part of the e-mail dated 06.05.2020 is reproduced below:
"Dear Sir, We are the lease holder of the first floor of Farm Bhawan Plot No. 14-15, Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019 measuring 3500 sq. feet Vide lease agreement dated 30.08.2012.
XXX In view of the above you are requested to kindly confirm whether part of building (1st floor measuring 3500 Sq. ft) Plot No. 14-15 Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019 along with entrance, stair, and lift have been sanitized properly and accordingly restored and made usable again.
XXX Therefore, we require confirmation from your side that our showroom area bearing 3500 sq. ft. located at first floor in Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi is restored in usable condition, duly complied with directions of the Central Government as well as Delhi Government in regard to sterilization/disinfection."
51. Plaintiff has submitted that even after the filing of the present suit, the Defendants, in para 4 of their Written Statement, have admitted that NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 25 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:31:54 +0530 they were lawful lessees and had possession of the entire leased area of 3,500 square feet since the inception of the Lease Deed. Para 4 of the written statement reads as:
"That the Plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Hon'ble Court and they are guilty of suggestion-falsi- suppression- vari. It is submitted that Defendants are a lawful lessee of the premises bearing no. 14- 15, farm Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi at First Floor measuring 3500 Sq. feet for the period of 9 years with effect from 26th July 2012 with the option of renewal with mutual consent vide lease deed dated 11th September 2012."
52. It has been contended by the Plaintiff that the defence raised by the Defendants qua deficiency in the lease area is merely an afterthought and contradicts their own admissions, which clearly demonstrate their malafide to escape from their liability. Plaintiff has submitted that Defendants are estopped from raising the alleged claim and have, by their own conduct, waived any alleged right to recover alleged excess rent paid by them to the Respondents.
53. As regards Defendant having themselves admitted to be in possession of 3500 sq. feet, the submissions of Plaintiff are incorrect since the Defendants have only referred the area of the suit property to be 3500 sq. feet in e-mail dated 06.05.2020 and in para 4 of their Written Statement and have not admitted that Defendants are in possession of 3500 sq. feet of suit property.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 26 of 78 Date:
2026.04.27 18:32:00 +053054. Defendants have submitted that despite receiving less area by the Defendants, the Plaintiff continued to raise lease rent bills on the basis of 3,500 sq. ft. and since the GST invoice included tax, the Defendants were legally bound to pay the full invoiced amount. Under the GST Act, if the payment of an invoice is not made within 180 days, then under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 37 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the recipient becomes liable to pay back the input tax credit along with interest and penalty. Therefore, even though there was a dispute on the area, the Defendants had no choice but to clear the full invoice amount. The reason given by Defendants is supported by legal provisions cited above in this para. Therefore, the reliance of Plaintiff on Manak Lal (Shri), Advocate v. Prem Chand Singhvi & Ors., 1957 SCC OnLine SC 10 is unfounded, and principles of waiver and estoppel do not apply against Defendants in the facts of the case.
55. It was argued on behalf of Plaintiff that Defendants have admitted in their pleadings and DW-1 admitted during his cross-examination that Defendants were aware as early as 2012 that the entire leased area of 3500 sq. ft. was not handed over to them but despite having such knowledge, the Defendants continued to pay rent as per the Lease Deed throughout the entire tenure of the tenancy. It has been further argued on behalf of Plaintiff that uninterrupted and unconditional payment of rent clearly indicates that the Defendants accepted possession of the entire leased area and waived any claim for recovery of alleged excess rent paid by them.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 27 of 78 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:32:05 +0530
56. Plaintiff has further submitted that allegedly, the Defendants had issued a legal notice dated 06.05.2014 and the same was never brought on record by the Defendants, calling upon the Plaintiff to hand over the remaining 600 sq. ft. of the suit property, however, even after issuing the said notice, Defendants did not initiate any legal proceedings within the period of limitation. Thus, their conduct in continuing to pay full rent after issuing the alleged notice amounts to a deliberate waiver to raise any issue in respect of total area of the leased premises.
57. Similar objections were taken and similar submissions were made by the Plaintiff for opposing the application filed by the Defendants under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC and the Plaintiff denied that Defendants sent a legal notice dated 06.05.2014 and apprised the Plaintiff that the area was short of 600 sq ft. The Plaintiff submitted that on 21.09.2020, the leased area was measured by Civil Engineering Division of the Plaintiff in presence of representative of the Defendants wherein it was categorically found that the area in possession of the defendants was 3594.83 sq ft and therefore there was no need for appointment of a local commissioner.
58. The said submission on the part of the Plaintiff at least supports the contention of the Defendants that area of the suit property in their possession was not 3500 sq. feet. The Defendants have placed on record mails dated 19.09.2020 and 22.09.2020. E-mail dated 19.09.2020 speaks of the previous requests made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff to depute their representative to measure the exact area handed over to the Defendants and that Defendants had received a call from one Parmod NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 28 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:32:11 +0530 Kumar who directed the Defendants to allow him to conduct measurement of lease area handed over to Defendants and the Defendants had expressed their inability to provide necessary arrangements required for conducting measurement and therefore requested Plaintiff for directing Parmod Kumar to visit the site of Defendants on Monday 21.09. 2020 for measuring the leased area. E-mail dated 22.09.2020 acknowledges the fact of conducting of joint inspection/verification of actual leased area by officers Parmod Kumar and Tarun Kumar from Department of the Defendants.
59. Vide the said mail dated 22.09.2020, Defendants had submitted extract of joint survey to the Plaintiff as an attachment to the said mail. The Defendants also placed on record e-mails sent by them to the Plaintiff and mentioning that leased area in their possession to be 2931.7 square feet.
60. In their reply dated 01.09.2020 to the legal notice for eviction and payment of outstanding lease rentals dated 17.08.2020, the Defendants categorically stated that after taking possession of the leased property, they renovated the property after expending huge amount and later on they had requested the Plaintiff to hand over the remaining area as they did not get full possession of 3500 square feet along with bathroom located at first floor. In the said reply, Defendants have also referred to the legal notice dated 06.05.2014 sent by them to the Plaintiff apprising for handing over approximately 600 sq ft area to Defendants.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 29 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:32:18 +0530
61. In its rejoinder to reply dated 01.09.2020, the Plaintiff has denied that Defendants had not been given possession of the complete area mentioned in the Lease Deed and rather the Plaintiff submitted that Defendants were given possession of 3594.83 square feet.
62. When the order dated 03.12.2024 was passed, the counterclaim of the Defendants, CS (COMM) No. 535 of 2022, was pending, and Defendants had filed their reply dated 06.05.2024 to the notice dated 24.04.2014 sent by Plaintiff to Defendants in their counterclaim.
63. In the said reply dated 06.05.2014 also, Defendants had stated that they were the legal and lawful lessee of the premises as per the lease deed in respect of property bearing no. 14-15, first floor, Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi comprising of area 3500 sq. ft. executed between the Plaintiff and them on 11.09.2012 and the lease commenced from 26.07.2012 for a period of nine years i.e. upto 25.07.2021. It is also stated in the reply that the leased property was not fully handed over to the Defendants as the toilets comprising an area of 600 sq ft approximately was not handed over to them at the time of execution of the lease deed with the excuse that the same shall be handed over very soon, as its location was in the common area of the building i.e. in front of the lift and adjacent to the staircase of the building. It was further stated that the Defendants were regularly tendering the monthly rent of Rs.4,91,575/- to the Plaintiff without any default in making the same for the entire portion of the leased property.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 30 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:32:25 +0530
64. The Plaintiff cannot raise the contention that since the counterclaim CS (COMM) No. 535 of 2022 had been rejected, this document cannot be taken into consideration since it was mandatory for Plaintiff to file all the documents in its possession relating to subject matter of the present suit and the reply dated 06.05.2014 is one of such documents. Thus, Plaintiff has concealed material facts from this court.
65. During his cross-examination, DW-1 was cross-examined on the aspect of deficiency in area handed over to Defendants which reads as:
"Q36 : Can you specify the date/month when the defendants requested the plaintiff to handover remaining area of the leased premises as mentioned by you in this paragraph?
Ans. : In January, 2013, I had requested verbally and sent reply- cum-legal notice in 2014.
Q37 : Have the defendants filed the said alleged reply-cum-legal notice sent in 2014?
Ans. : Yes. It was filed in the file of counter-claim.
At this stage, witness is shown para 6 and 7 of his affidavit of evidence.
Q38 : Have the defendants filed any document in support of the assertions made in these paragraphs?
Ans. : Yes. Initially, we requested a number of times verbally. Later, the NSC team visited the premises and measured that and site plan was prepared accordingly which confirmed that less area was delivered and the same was confirmed by LC appointed by Hon'ble Court.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 31 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:32:32 +0530 Q39 : Can you please specify the time/year of the visit of NSC team as referred by you in answer to the previous question?
Ans. : Around the time when Covid-19 was prevalent.
Q40 : In view of your answer to previous question, is it correct that since 2012 till 2020, there is either no document or no visit by NSC team to measure the leased premises?
Ans. : Yes. Prior to 2020, there is no document but NSC team visited the premises after merging with Farm Bhawan.
Q42 : I put it to you that defendants have not filed any document in support of the averments made in para 6 and 7 as no such documents or understanding was arrived at between the parties. What do you have to say?
Ans. : It is wrong.
Q43 : As per the defendants, what was the area of the leased premises handed over to the defendants?
Ans. : It was approx. 2900 sq. feet, if wall and columns included, it goes to 3125 sq. feet approximately.
Q44 : In view of your above answer, is it correct that the area measured by the Local Commissioner is incorrect?
Ans. : Although Ld. LC calculated it to be 3206 sq. feet, we had accepted it. (Vol.As per the LC report, it was 3206 sq. feet as the Ld. LC included the external pillar of the building also and we did not oppose it as we have already contested the litigation from long time.)"
66. The Plaintiff did not file the copies of e-mails dated 19.09.2020 and 22.09.2020 and even in its Replication did not mention the measurement of the area of the suit property under the possession of the Defendants having been conducted at any point in time. However, in its affidavit of NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 32 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:32:40 +0530 admission/denial of documents which were filed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff has admitted the existence of these e-mails. Therefore, the Plaintiff has concealed this material fact from this court. The Plaint and the Replication are also silent about the legal notice dated 06.05.2014 which was sent by the Defendants to the Plaintiff for handing over approximately 600 sq. feet area to the Defendants.
67. From perusal of proceedings of this court, it is noticed that the Plaintiff had filed an application under Order XV-A CPC prior to July, 2021 and the objection of being handed over area lesser by 600 sq. feet was taken by Defendants even in reply to the said application. The Defendants had taken a categorical objection that no site plan had been filed alongwith plaint deliberately since there is difference in the area of suit property mentioned in the Lease Deed and actual area in possession with the Defendants. It was also submitted by the Defendants that a rough sketch/site plan was prepared by the Defendants with the directions and in the presence of the authorized representatives of the Plaintiff on 21.09.2020, who came at the suit property and as per the measurement conducted on the said site, admittedly, the area of suit property was 3126.9 sq. feet. Rejoinder to the reply was filed by Plaintiff and while deciding the said application filed by Plaintiff under Order XV-A CPC, in its order dated 09.07.2021, my learned Predecessor observed that despite coming to know the deficiencies in the plaint, no steps were taken by the Plaintiff and dismissed the application on two grounds, the first one being the complete documents pertaining to the case had not been filed. No site plan had been filed in a suit for possession, where the area of property NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 33 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:32:46 +0530 itself is in dispute. From this order, it is clear that my learned Predecessor had already returned a finding against the Plaintiff that Plaintiff had not filed complete documents as well as site plan. However, despite that the Plaintiff did not file the site plan.
68. It is correct that this order dated 09.07.2021 was set aside by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM (M) 1056/2021. However, it was not set aside on merits vide order dated 10.03.2022 but was set aside because parties had come to a mutual agreement in the course of hearing and after recording the terms of the settlement, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi specifically observed as:
"10. It is made clear that these payments and deposits will be made and accepted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit. This Court has not entered into the merits of the rights and contentions of the parties, which are for the Trial Court to resolve."
69. The Plaintiff despite being in knowledge of the observation of learned Predecessor and despite being in knowledge of the categorical objection of the Defendants being not handed over/given possession of the complete area of suit property, did not file the site plan of the suit property which is the best evidence to prove the area of the suit property. Therefore, the Plaintiff has concealed the important material fact, and material from this court.
70. The same is also substantiated by relevant portion of cross- examination of PW-1 conducted on 08.08.2025 are given as under:-
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 34 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:32:52 +0530 "Q1 : I put it to you that after taking part possession of the leased property, defendants renovated the property and later on requested the plaintiff to hand over the remaining area as the defendants did not get full possession of 3500 sq. feet alongwith the bathroom located at First Floor. What do you have to say?
Ans.: I have no idea.
Q2 : I put it to you that the plaintiff told the defendants that Farm Bhawan is in process of merging with Beej Bhawan and requested the defendants to pay entire rental amount and plaintiff will depute their staff to revise/to measure the exact area and will reimburse the excess amount on account of rent amount with respect to total actual floor area. What do you have to say?
Ans. : I have no idea.
Q3 : I put it to you that after several requests and reminders to hand over entire area i.e. 3500 sq. feet or revise the lease amount, plaintiff did not bother for the same compelling the defendants to send legal notice dated 06.05.2014. What do you have to say?
Ans. : I have no idea.
Q4 : I put it to you that on 21.09.2020, after repeated requests of the defendants, representatives of the plaintiff had visited at the premises and measured the premises and found the area of the leased premises was 3126.96 sq. feet. What do you have to say?
Ans. :I have no idea. (Vol. The measuring is done by a separate department.)"
71. PW-1 was also shown rough site plans prepared after measurement of the suit property under possession of the Defendants, Ex. DW-1/7 (running into 2 pages) on 21.09.2020. PW-1 stated that he had no idea of the same. They were marked as Mark PW1/DX1 and were exhibited later NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 35 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:32:59 +0530 as Ex. DW-1/7(running into 2 pages) during the recording of evidence of DW-1.
72. The Plaintiff has nowhere pleaded or argued that it is not in possession of the site plan of the suit property. Therefore, the Plaintiff has concealed the best evidence, and adverse inference is drawn against the Plaintiff under Section 114 (g) of Evidence Act that site plan of suit property mentions the total area of first floor owned by Plaintiff as well as the area of suit property which was handed over to the Defendants and supports the case of Defendants that the area of suit property handed over to the Defendants was less than 3500 sq. ft.
73. On the other hand, the Defendants have submitted that they requested Plaintiff to confirm the actual area that had been handed over to the Defendants. Following repeated requests of the Defendants, the Plaintiff team visited the premises and prepared a site plan reflecting the actual area in the possession of Defendants. However, the Plaintiff did not provide any written confirmation of the same. Therefore, Defendants continued to occupy the leased property until the actual area could be formally confirmed by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court.
74. Defendants have placed on record the e-mails dated 19.09.2020 and 22.09.2020, Ex. DW-1/6 and Ex.DW-1/8, the existence of which has been admitted by the Plaintiff which prove that the rough sketch/site plan was prepared by the Defendants with the directions and in the presence of the authorized representatives of the Plaintiff on 21.09.2020 who came at the NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 36 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:33:05 +0530 suit property at the continuous request of the Defendants and as per the measurement conducted on the said date, admittedly, the area of the suit property under possession of the Defendants was found to be 3126.9 sq. feet as measured and calculated by authorized representatives of the Plaintiff and 2931.7 sq. feet as per the measurement and calculation of Defendants in presence of authorized representatives of the Plaintiff which is duly mentioned in the e-mails sent to the Plaintiff, Ex. DW-1/6 and Ex.DW-1/8 alongwith the two site plans prepared on 21.09.2020, Ex. DW-1/7 (running into 2 pages).
75. Further, the measurement of the suit property was also carried out by learned Local Commissioner who was appointed by this court vide order dated 03.12.2024 who was directed to visit the suit property i.e. Property bearing no. 14, 15, Farm Bhawan, Nehru place, New Delhi at first floor and:
"measure accurately the area of the property bearing no. 14, 15, Farm Bhawan, Nehru place, New Delhi at first floor which is under the possession of the Defendants/ Applicants and also the area of the said property for which it has been alleged by the Defendants/Applicants that the possession has not been handed over to them. Learned local commissioner shall bring measuring tape for executing the commission."
76. The said order was challenged on behalf of the Plaintiff by filing CM (M) 4045/2024 which was dismissed vide order dated 21.05.2025. In para 8 of the said order 21.05.2025, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also observed that respondents/Defendants had also filed a counterclaim seeking recovery of Rs.1,36,27,846/- as according to them, there was NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 37 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:33:11 +0530 excess payment of the lease rental to the lessor. Admittedly, such counter- claim has been rejected by the learned Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Despite being aware of the counter-claim having been rejected, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi specifically observed that:
"9. The preliminary decree of possession was passed on 25.10.2024 and after passing of such decree, the lessee (respondent herein) filed an application seeking appointment of Local Commissioner, with obvious purpose.
10. It merely wanted the Local Commissioner to go to the suit property and to measure the covered area, which is 3500 sq. ft, as per the Plaintiff. As noted, as per Defendants, the covered area is around 2900 sq. ft. only. 11. Since the issue of mesne profits and damages is still very much alive before the learned Trial Court, it allowed the above-said application vide order dated 03.12.2024.
14. The issues, which are still alive before the learned Trial Court, are with respect to the entitlement of Plaintiff to recover arrears of rent, interest, if any, past and future mesne profits and interest thereupon.
15. As per lease-deed executed between the parties, the lessee has to pay monthly lease rent @ Rs.125/- per sq. ft. per month and service tax @ 12.36% total amounting to Rs.4,91,575/- and, it also mentions that the covered area of 3500 sq. ft. together with right of entrance, passage, staircase, use of lift and other easements had been given on lease to the lessee.
16. Though, decree with respect to possession had already been passed, the question with respect to mesne profits and rental is yet to be adjudicated.
19. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case and the fact that the extent of covered area leased out in terms of the abovesaid lease has a direct bearing, with respect to the pending issues, this NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 38 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:33:17 +0530 Court does not find any real requirement of interfering with the impugned order."
77. Therefore, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reaffirmed the observation of this court that extent of covered area leased out in terms of the Lease Deed has a direct bearing with respect to the pending issues.
78. Plaintiff challenged the report of learned Local Commissioner by relying upon the definition of covered area as given in Model Building Bye Laws, 2016 which reads as:
"29. "Covered Area"- The Ground area covered immediately above the plinth level covered by the building but does not include the space covered by:
a. Garden, rockery, well and well structures, plant nursery, water pool, swimming pool (if uncovered), platform round a tree, tank, fountain, bench, chabutra with open top and unenclosed on sides by walls and the like;
b. Drainage culvert, conduit, catch-pit, gully-pit, chamber, gutter and the like;
c. Compound wall, gate, slide/ swing door, canopy, and areas covered by chajja or similar projections and staircases which are uncovered and open at least on three sides and also open to sky."
79. Plaintiff has taken an objection that learned Local Commissioner did not measure the area of suit property under possession of the Defendants correctly since the same was not done in conformity with the said definition. However, the said submission of Plaintiff is not NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 39 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:33:23 +0530 sustainable since the Plaintiff has not brought anything on record nor has submitted anywhere that at any point of time, the area of 3500 sq. feet, stated to be area of suit property, mentioned in the Lease Deed was measured according to Model Building Bye Laws, 2016.
80. The objective of Model Building Bye Laws, 2016 is to regulate coverage, height, building, bulk and architectural design and construction aspects of buildings to achieve orderly development of an area and these Bye Laws have no relevance or applicability to measurement of any property for any other purpose. This view is supported by the Definitions given as Section 1 in the Model Building Bye Laws, 2016 which specifically reads as:
"1.0 General In these Bye Laws, unless the context otherwise requires, the Definitions given shall have the meaning indicated against each term."
81. Therefore, the Model Building Bye Laws exempts their applicability in the context otherwise required even in the Bye Laws since Model Building Bye Laws, 2016 have different object and context in which the same are applicable
82. Model Building Bye Laws govern the construction, structural safety, and alteration of buildings rather than the financial terms of a rent agreement. Model Building Bye Laws are applicable to rent agreements NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 40 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:33:29 +0530 regarding building usage, illegal alterations, and occupancy safety but not on aspect of calculating covered area.
83. Lease Deed mentions 'covered area of suit property to be 3500 sq. fts.' However, the Plaintiff has nowhere averred nor does the Lease Deed mention that the expression 'covered area' means covered area as per definition of Model Building Bye Laws. The expression 'covered area' in the lease deeds is used in general connotation as area given under lease deeds and not as per Model Building Bye Laws. Not even 10% of general populace know about Model Building Bye Laws or the meaning of covered area as per definition of Model Building Bye Laws. Plaintiff has tried to take a misleading objection and the objection about Model Building Bye Laws is therefore beyond pleadings taken for the first time in affidavit of evidence of PW-2.
84. Measurement of area in possession of the Defendants was/is not governed by Model Building Bye Laws as entering a Lease Deed and the terms and conditions of Lease Deed are not covered under any of the objectives or ambit of Model Building Bye Laws. Learned Counsel for Defendants had also specifically given a suggestion to PW-2 that Model Building Bye Laws do not apply to the present case.
85. Learned Local Commissioner was examined as DW-2 and cross examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff in reference to his knowledge about Model Building Bye Laws as well as to CPWD guidelines. In my considered opinion, learned Local Commissioner was not required to NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 41 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:33:37 +0530 know about Model Building Bye Laws or CPWD guidelines for measuring the area of suit property under possession of the Defendants since the directions given to learned Local Commissioner for the manner in which the area was to be calculated by him was clear in the order of this court dated 03.12.2024. Learned Local Commissioner was also directed to draw a rough site plan as well as take photographs during execution of commission and the same have been complied with.
86. During his cross examination, learned Local Commissioner admitted that the area measured by him on 27.05.2025 is the covered area of the premises in dispute. No question was put to him that he had not measured the area of the suit property under possession of the Defendants as per Model Building Bye Laws. The other questions put to the learned Local Commissioner during his cross examination were about the Defendants having stored any goods/materials in the premises under measurement by learned Local Commissioner to which he answered that the photographs filed alongwith his report can be perused for the same. The other question put to learned Local Commissioner was if small lobby excluded from covered area of the premises under measurement could only be used by the Defendants to which learned Local Commissioner answered that he had made the outline of the premises measured which earmarks the lobby within the premises. Similarly, in respect of suggestion that there was no legal basis for exclusion of small lobby and electric shaft from the measurement of covered area, it was denied by learned Local Commissioner and he stated that the same was beyond the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 42 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:33:46 +0530 scope of order appointing him. Therefore, the testimony of learned Local Commissioner remained unshaken.
87. Plaintiff had examined two witnesses and Technician Civil GD-1 of the Plaintiff deposed in his affidavit of evidence that the total area of the suit property is 3922 sq. feet and covered area of suit property under possession of the Defendants was 3500 sq. feet which includes common washroom, electrical shaft, small lobby and the washroom utilized by the staff of the Defendants. The said deposition of PW-2 is against the stipulation of Lease Deed defining the leased property as Commercial Plot No.14 and 15, Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi on First Floor, measuring a covered area of 3500 sq. feet together with right of entrance, passage, staircase, use of lifts and other easements belonging to the said premises.
88. In para 10 of his affidavit, PW-2 has deposed that the electrical niches were also part of the leased area as the control panels and electrical equipment installed therein were used by the tenants of the first floor of foot property i.e. Defendants. He also deposed the Defendants had placed their double battery inverter in the lobby which are connected with the control panel thus the lobby was exclusively used by the Defendants and these facilities were used by the Defendants and therefore they are liable to pay rent to the Plaintiff for the said area. During his cross examination, PW-2 admitted that he had made false depositions in para 10 of his affidavit of evidence.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 43 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:33:57 +0530
89. In para 5 of his affidavit, PW-2 has stated area of premises to be 3922 sq. feet and area under possession of the Defendants to be 3500 sq. feet in para 6 of his affidavit. During cross-examination of DW-1, the Plaintiff proved that Defendants had not measured the suit property before or at the time of executing of Lease Deed.
90. As observed earlier, the Plaintiff has not filed any document in support of the area of premises or covered area of suit property under possession of Defendants. During his cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that the Plaintiff had not filed any document to show that the total area of suit property (it should be area of premises as in para 5 of his affidavit, PW-2 has stated area of premises to be 3922 sq. feet and area under possession of the Defendants to be 3500 sq. feet in para 6 of his affidavit.) is 3922 sq. feet as mentioned in para 5 of his affidavit of evidence.
91. In Para 14 of his affidavit of evidence, PW-2 has deposed that the only area which is liable to be deducted from the total area of 3922 sq. feet is the staircase measuring 7.37 feet x 12.83 feet (totaling 94.55 sq. feet). During his cross examination, PW-2 admitted that no document was filed by the Plaintiff in support of his submission.
92. PW-2 denied that he had deposed falsely about suit property under possession of the Defendants to be 3500 sq. feet which includes common washroom, electrical shaft, small lobby and the washroom utilized by the staff of the Defendants.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 44 of 78 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:34:03 +0530
93. During his cross examination, PW-2 admitted that he was member of the committee appointed by the Plaintiff to measure the premises on 27.05.2025 by learned Local Commissioner. He denied that rough site plan was prepared by learned Local Commissioner but admitted that page No.12 to 17 of his report were prepared in his presence and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW-2/DX-1 (colly.). The same are spot proceedings and record that learned Local Commissioner measured the outer and inner area in presence of AR of both sides starting from the front/entrance side of said premises which came out as 79 feet 6 inch. Thereafter, length of the said premises was measured which came out as 49 feet 4 inches. Area comprised of staircase, lifts, common washroom, electric shaft was measured which came out as 24 feet 0 inch by 27 feet 2 inch and 7 feet 4.5 inch by 12 feet 10 inch. The washroom which was being used by the Defendants was measured to be 5 feet 6 inch by 6 feet 1 inch.
94. Learned Local Commissioner has also recorded in Ex. PW-2/DX-1 (Colly.) that during the measurement being taken, he was assisted by representatives of both sides and the few points raised by both sides regarding original structure of floor were raised which were heard and addressed. The said issues do not pertain to area of suit property and was therefore beyond the scope of order of appointment of learned Local Commissioner.
95. It was also recorded in Ex. PW-2/DX-1 (Colly.) that for ease of reference, a rough site plan has been made which is annexed with the spot proceedings. This report bears signatures of ARs of both sides including NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 45 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:34:11 +0530 that of PW-2 at point A. PW-2 admitted that all measurements were done by learned Local Commissioner as well as photographs of proceedings were taken in his presence. He admitted the photographs filed with the report of learned Local Commissioner and the same were exhibited as Ex. PW-2/DX-3 (Colly.). PW-2 admitted that there are two toilets on the First Floor and that one is opposite to lift and the other one is inside the tenanted premises. He also admitted that the electric shaft and control panel is outside the tenanted premises. He also admitted that anyone can enter or exit in the lobby which is outside the tenanted premises. He also admitted that lift and staircase are from Ground Floor to First Floor.
96. In his report, learned Local Commissioner has reported that :
"The Final Area of the said Premises was determined to be 3,209.35 Square Feet The Calculation is as follows
a) The overall dimensions of the said premises measured 49 feet 4 inches by 79 feet 6 inches, amounting to 3,922 square feet.
b) The section towards the rear of the premises, comprising of:
An area measuring 24 feet 0 inches by 27 feet 2 inches, equalling 652 square feet;
The lift area measuring 7 feet 4.5 inches by 12 feet 10 inches, equalling 94.11 square feet.
Combining to be a total 746.11 square feet.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 46 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:34:17 +0530
c) The washroom accessible only to the staff of M/s Lingo Impex and M/s Cost to Cost, measuring 5 feet 6 inches by 6 feet 1 inch, equating to 33.46 square feet.
(a+c) - b, that is 3922 + 33.46- 746.11 = 3209.35"
97. The said measurement made by learned Local Commissioner in his report alongwith the rough site plan is duly supported and corroborated by cross examination of PW-2. Thus, the Defendants have proved that the area of the suit property under their possession was 3209.35 sq. feet and not 3500 sq. feet. During his cross-examination, DW-1 stated that although learned LC calculated area under possession of Defendants to be 3206 sq. feet, the Defendants had accepted it and volunteered that as per the LC report, it was 3206 sq. feet as the Ld. LC included the external period of the building also and we did not oppose it as Defendants were already contesting the litigation from long time.
98. The second objection taken by the Defendants pertains to Force Majeure Clause contained in the Lease Deed. The same shall be dealt while deciding remaining issues.
1. In view of observations made hereinabove, Defendants have proved that Plaintiff has not filed all documents related to the present case such as the statement of account in regards to the payment made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, copies of letters which were sent by the Defendants to the Plaintiff or Plaintiff to the Defendants, copies of emails sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 47 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:34:27 +0530 or Plaintiff to the Defendants, copies of bills raised by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. Plaintiff has also not filed the site plan of the suit property, and Plaintiff concealed the fact that the complete area which was mentioned in the Lease Deed was never handed over to the Defendants and Plaintiff also concealed that the Defendants had been continuously raising the objection in regards to the area of the leased premises possession of which was not delivered to them and also wrote number of communications to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff also concealed that the rough sketch/site plan was prepared by the Defendants with the directions and in the presence of the authorised representatives of the Plaintiff on 21.09.2020. Plaintiff has wrongly stated that only after receiving the legal notice dated 17.08.2020, Ex. D-14, the defendants, for the first time, frivolously disputed the leased area as an afterthought in an attempt to evade their liability. Therefore, Defendants have successfully proved that Plaintiff concealed material facts from this Court.
99. Therefore, Issue No.7 is decided in favour of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff and it is held that the Plaintiff has concealed material facts as submitted by the Defendants in its Written Statement.
Issue No.1 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent as prayed for?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
100. Alongwith the plaint, Plaintiff had also filed an application under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2021. As observed while deciding Issue No.7, the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 48 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:34:33 +0530 aforesaid order was challenged by the Plaintiff in CM (M) No. 1056 of 2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein the order dated 09.07.2021 was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 10.03.2022.
101. The relevant portion of the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are reproduced below:
"8. Having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 09.07.2021 is set aside, and substituted by the following directions under Order XV-A of the CPC:-
a) The total amount of arrears of rent due from the Defendants to the Plaintiff for the period April, 2020 to February, 2022, calculated at the rate of ₹6,82,731/- per month, works out to ₹1,54,34,806.81/-, after adjusting the payment of ₹2,68,006.19/- made on 17.11.2021. This amount will be deposited by the Defendants before the Trial Court in eight monthly instalments, by the 15th day of each calendar month, commencing from 15.03.2022.
The first seven instalments will be of ₹20 lakhs each, with the balance amount being deposited as the eighth instalment.
b) In addition, the Defendants will pay to the Plaintiff user charges in the amount of ₹6,82,731/- per month, being the last paid rent. The payment for the month of March, 2022 will be made by 15.03.2022, and for each succeeding month by the 15th day of each calendar month. In respect of the monthly payments made to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff will provide a GST invoice simultaneously upon the payment being made. c. In default of deposit or payment of any of the aforesaid instalments, the consequences provided in Order XV-A of the CPC will follow.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 49 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:34:38 +0530
9. The petition, alongwith the pending application, is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. There will be no order as to costs.
10. It is made clear that these payments and deposits will be made and accepted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit. This Court has not entered into the merits of the rights and contentions of the parties, which are for the Trial Court to resolve."
102. However, order dated 09.07.2021 dismissing the application under Order XV-A of the CPC filed by Plaintiff, was not set aside on merits vide order dated 10.03.2022 but it was set aside because parties had come to a mutual agreement in the course of hearing and after recording the terms of the settlement, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi specifically observed as:
"10. It is made clear that these payments and deposits will be made and accepted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit. This Court has not entered into the merits of the rights and contentions of the parties, which are for the Trial Court to resolve."
103. The Defendants have been making payments to the Plaintiff in terms of order dated 10.03.2022 and also deposited the DDs of Rs. 20,00,000/- each in the name of Court of Ld. District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 which were later converted into FDRs by allowing the application filed by Defendants in this regard praying for converting DDs into FDRs vide order dated 01.04.2024.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 50 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2026.04.27 18:34:45 +0530
104. The Plaintiff has claimed arrears of rent for the period April 2020 to 17.08.2020. The Plaintiff has submitted that from April, 2020 onwards the Defendants started defaulting in paying the lease rentals despite issuance of lease rent bills by the Plaintiff upon the Defendants for the period from April, 2020 till August, 2020.
105. Plaintiff has submitted that the Defendants vide letter dated 02.06.2020, Ex. P-1, illegally and blatantly refused to pay the lease rent, while simultaneously retaining the suit property in their exclusive possession and control, and keeping their goods physically in the suit property.
106. On perusal of letter dated 02.06.2020, Ex. P-1, written by Defendants to Plaintiff, it is noticed that the Defendants, by referring to Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed, submitted that the representative of Plaintiff delivered lease rent bill for the month of April, May and June 2020 and that Defendants are not liable to pay the same in view of Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed during pendency of Force Majeure until the portion in their possession was restored and made usable again without preventing to perform their routine business as a whole or in parts by orders of Government or other statutory authorities. The Defendants had also made a reference to the order no. 40-3/2020-DM-I (A) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and more orders issued by Government of India. The Defendants had written that the said orders did not permit the Defendants to reopen their entire business without restrictions and that under order no. 40-3/2020-DM-I (A), strict NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 51 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:34:51 +0530 instructions are stipulated to maintain social distance up to six feet and limitation of maximum 5 number of customers in showroom at a time. The Defendants had written that therefore, if any lease rent bill is issued by the Plaintiff that would be considered as void as per the orders of government read with Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed.
107. On 11.06.2020, Plaintiff replied vide Ex. P-2 to the letter dated 02.06.2020, Ex. P-1, wherein the Plaintiff refuted the contentions of the Defendants and denied the applicability of Force Majeure, and also if Force Majeure circumstances were prevailing, why the Defendants had kept the premises under their full control and possession and not returned the same if the same was not being used by them for business purposes. Plaintiff requested the Defendants to pay the outstanding lease rentals within a week else vacate the suit property.
108. Defendants, through their proprietor, vide letter dated 27.06.2020 Ex. P-3, reiterated the contents of their letter dated 02.06.2020, Ex. P-1, and refused to pay the lease rent and vacate the possession of the suit property.
109. Plaintiff has submitted that therefore tenancy was terminated vide a legal notice dated 17.08.2020, Ex. D-14, and the Defendants were asked to pay the outstanding lease rentals, and to vacate the suit property and non-payment of rent by the Defendants as well as not vacating the suit property led to filing of the present suit.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 52 of 78 Date:
2026.04.27 18:34:59 +0530110. Defendants have submitted that in the beginning of 2020, a virus namely Covid-19 started to spread into the world and after some time World Health Organization declared pandemic. In the month of March 2020, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide order No.40- 3/2020-DM-I(A} locked down the India to combat virus and issued guidelines under section 10[2]{1} of the Disaster Management Act 2005. Defendants have further submitted that thereafter DDMA order No.176 dated 18.05.2020 allowed opening the shop based on ODD and EVEN number with 50% capacity of Staff, Metro rail service was not allowed, DTC Buses allowed with maximum 20 passengers etc. conditions restricted Defendants to run their business. Although Unlock 1, Unlock 2, and unlock 3 orders issued by DDMA, Government of NCT provided some relaxations but still had condition that Social Distance (2 Gaz ki doori ) is to be maintained by shopkeeper. It provided that in case social distance is not maintained in shop, then shop was liable to be closed in view of public health and shopkeeper shall also be liable for prosecution under relevant laws.
111. Defendants have submitted that due to conditions stipulated in these orders, Defendants could not run their business with free movement of customers and staff as well. Defendants have submitted that their showroom was designed according to DIY concept (Do it Yourself) wherein customers buy hardware required for assembling or upgrading of Personal computer and then they assemble by themselves or upgrade to their system under the guidance of Defendant's staff and due to restrictions (2 Gaj ki doori ), Defendants were not able to perform even NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 53 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:35:07 +0530 5% of their total performance as 2 Gaj ki doori was not sufficient to cover Defendant's staff only.
112. Defendants have further submitted that since the Delhi Government did not issue any permanent order, even after 30 days of the lockdown, Defendants were unable to resume business operations from the leased property. Defendants have averred that abovesaid order of Government prevented the Defendants for performing their routine business at leased premises and Defendants were not in position to run its business in normal conditions due to restrictions and due to issuance of notifications and restrictions and Force Majeure, the para no. III {5} of the lease deed invoked, and Defendants were not liable to pay any monthly leased amount to the Plaintiff till the pendency of Force Majeure.
113. Plaintiff has submitted that even after the Plaintiff issued a termination notice dated 17.08.2020, Ex. D-14, thereby terminating the tenancy of the Defendants, the Defendants neither vacated the premises nor handed over peaceful possession to the Plaintiff. Instead, they continued to remain in unauthorized occupation of the premises, which further disentitles them from raising any defence of Force Majeure.
114. Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed pertaining to Force Majeure reads as:
"III....
XXX NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 54 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:35:13 +0530
5. Neither party shall be liable to the other for its failure to perform or fulfil any of its obligations to the extent that its performance is delayed or prevented, in whole or in part, due to:
acts of Government, act of God: floods: cyclones: earthquakes: fire: wars: riots: strikes: (unless caused by the acts or omissions of Lessor, or the Lessee's failure to act in good faith to resolve the same) sabotage; orders of Governmental or other Statutory authorities: national emergency: or any other similar causes beyond the reasonable control of the party affected ("Force Majoure" ). In the event the said premises or any part thereof is rendered unfit for the purpose of which the same was let due to Force Majeure, or if the Lessee is prevented from using the same for a period of more than thirty (30) days due to Force Majeure then the Lessee shall have the right to terminate this lease immediately. The lessee shall not be liable to pay to the Lessor, the rent and all other amounts as payable under these presents for the portion of the said premises which is unusable by the lessee during the pendency of Force Majeure until such portion of the said premises is restored and made usable again."
115. On perusal of this clause, it is noticed that Force Majeure clause covers 'failure of parties to perform or fulfil any of its obligations to the extent that its performance is delayed or prevented, in whole or in part, due to acts of Government, It is pertinent to note that draft of Lease Deed was provided by the Plaintiff to Defendants as proved by Plaintiff by cross-examination of DW-1. Therefore, the Plaintiff, is the framer of this provision and fully understand its ambit and effect.
116. Suit property was let out for shop/office purpose as specifically mentioned in the Lease Deed, it cannot be disputed that suit property was rendered unfit for the purpose of which the same was let due to DDMA Notifications during Covid time. In the matter of Isherdas Sahni & Bros.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 55 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:35:20 +0530 vs. Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1833, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referred to notifications issued by GNCT of Delhi as:
"The Government of NCT of Delhi vide its Notification dated 19.03.2020 directed that "All restaurants in NCT of Delhi shall discontinue seating arrangements in their premises till 31.03.2020. However, the operations of Home Delivery and Take Away from the Restaurants would be continued". Similar Notification was released by Government of NCT of Delhi on 20.03.2020. Another Order dated 14.04.2020 was issued by Government of NCT of Delhi stating that Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) notified lockdown in the territory of NCT of Delhi with effect from25.03.2020 till the mid night of 14.04.2020 and various subsequent directions have been issued by DDMA. The lockdown period had been further extended till 03.05.2020."
117. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi proceeded to observe that:
"46. ......On the imposition of the complete Lockdown with effect from 20.03.2020 none could get out of their houses; the activities of the business of Defendant came to a complete naught. There is nothing on record to suggest that during this period of April-May 2020, any business was carried out by the Defendant. The Lockdown brought with it a situation where the working staff also were unable to step out of their place of abode. ......
47. This was just the onset of COVID wherein its effects and the future was a complete mystery, with none aware of what would happen in the following days. The Lock Down was extended vide Govt. Notifications from time to time because of the uncertainty that prevailed. This was a situation when circumstances radically NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 56 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:35:27 +0530 changed in so much as the people were locked in their homes struggling with this mysterious disease with a looming fear of being alive on the next day. Many were left with no means of sustenance in this altered situation which prevented people from stepping out. ...
48. With no customers and no staff available, it was a radically a changed situation. Even the premises also got shut because of the Govt impositions. For no fault of any, there was neither any premises (in practical sense) nor any customers nor any workers. Though the Govt. Notification permitted Home Delivery/ Take Away Services but such was the extent of contagiousness of this mystery disease that the people were advised to observe complete segregation and no items or deliveries were being accepted from outside. The essentials were being left at the doorsteps, to be brought inside after proper sanitization. ...
As held in the case of Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd. (supra), it was not a case where the business became onerous. Rather, as explained in the case of Energy Watchdog (supra),the fundamental basis of the performance of Contract altered and was practically completed prevented/hindered and it was impossible to continue with the activities of the Restaurant.
49. This Court in the case of M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs. Vedanta Limited & Anr. in OMP (I) (COMM) decided on 20.04.2020 observed that the countrywide lockdown, which got imposed on 20th March 2020 was not only unprecedented but was also incapable of being predicted by either of the parties, and was in the nature of Force Majeure.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 57 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:35:34 +0530
50. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mehra Jewel Palace vs. Miniso Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. bearing no. CS(COMM) 376/2020 dated 25.05.2022 in the similar factual situation observed that the benefit of Force Majeure would enure to the Defendant/ tenant for the month of April,2020 and May, 2020 and the contention of the Plaintiff that as per the Clause the payment of rent could only be delayed or postponed but not waived, was rejected.
51. Applying the aforesaid principles to the business of the Defendant, it has to be necessarily concluded that it was a case wherein the performance was completely frustrated by Force Majeure situation from 20th March,2020 till May, 2020."
118. In the present case also COVID-19 notifications/Orders did not permit the Defendant to run its business as can be noticed from the DDMA Notifications. The misery and plight of people at large during COVID period have been referred in the above cited paragraphs of Isherdas Sahni & Bros. vs. Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., (Supra). In Isherdas Sahni & Bros. vs. Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., (Supra), the Defendant was running a restaurant business and DDMA Notifications later provided relaxations to restaurants and allowed home delivery. However, in the present case, Defendant's showroom was designed according to DIY concept ( Do it Yourself) wherein customers buy hardware required for assembling or upgrading of Personal computer and then they assemble by themselves or upgrade to their system under the guidance of Defendant's staff and due to restrictions (2 Gaj ki doori ) Defendants were not able to perform even 5 % of their total performance as 2 Gaj ki doori was not NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 58 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:35:40 +0530 sufficient to cover Defendant's staff only. Defendants could not run their business with free movement of customers and staff as well.
119. The exception to applicability of this clause is 'unless caused by the acts or omissions of Lessor, or the Lessee's failure to act in good faith to resolve the same". Outbreak of Covid is not attributable to any acts or omissions of Plaintiff or Defendants' failure to act in good faith to resolve the same.
120. The office of Defendants falls under the category of commercial establishments. GNCTD, DDMA issued Order dated 25.03.2020 which closed down commercial and private establishments. This order was extended by GNCTD, DDMA vide order dated 14.04.2020 and further extended till 03.05.2020. Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs issued order dated 01.05.2020 whereby the lockdown period was extended for a period of two weeks with effect from 04.05.2020. Under the said order, market complexes were closed in urban areas. The suit property is also situated in market complex of Nehru place and was just prohibited from being opened.
121. GNCTD, DDMA issued Order dated 18.05.2020 which extended the lockdown up to 31.05.2020. Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs issued order dated 17.05.2020 whereby the lockdown period was extended up to 31.05.2020. The Defendants have placed on record the orders issued by GNCTD, DDMA dated 25.03.2020, 26.03.2020, 29.03.2020, 04.04.2020, 11.04.2020, 14.04.2020, 03.05.2020, NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 59 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:35:48 +0530 01.06.2020, 29.06.2020, 01.07.2020, 31.08.2020, 03.09.2020, 13.09.2020, 30.09.2020, 27.10.2020, 02.11.2020, 31.12.2020, 21.08.2021, 15.09.2021, 30.09.2021, 30.01.2021, 31.01.2021, 27.02.2021, 27.03.2021, 01.05.2021, 29.05.2021, 04.07.2021, 24.07.2021, 30.08.2021, 14.10.2021, 29.10.2021, 15.11.2021, 30.11.2021, 15.12.2021, 22.12.2021, 04.02.2022, 26.02.2022. The Defendants have also produced order of Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30.05.2020, 29.06.2020, 28.09.2021, 27.01.2021, 26.02.2021, 23.03.2021, 29.04.2021, 27.05.2021, 29.06.2021, Circular of Govt. of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting dated 30.01.2021, Circular of Govt. of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports dated 29.01.2021, SOP of Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated 30.01.2021, SOP of Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 11.11.2021. To maintain social distance (Do gaz ki doori) was the norm during the COVID period. Various orders, circulars, notifications kept on adding and allowing different activities and establishments from the list of prohibited or regulated activities/movement depending on the gravity of waves of Covid and the restrictions were also dependent on the intensity of virus spreading Corona. This court can take judicial notice of all these orders, circulars, notifications. The submissions of Defendants inspire confidence that due to restrictions (2 Gaj ki doori ) Defendants were not able to perform even 5 % of their total performance as 2 Gaj ki doori was not sufficient to cover Defendant's staff and that since the Delhi Government did not issue any permanent order, even after 30 days of the lockdown Defendants were unable to resume business operations from the leased property.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 60 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:35:55 +0530
122. It was on 26.02.2022 that order was issued by GNCTD, DDMA removing all prohibitions/restrictions imposed with effect from intervening night of 27.02.2022 and 28.02.2022 till further orders.
123. Therefore, the Defendants' inability to run its business because of government/DDMA notifications is squarely covered by the expression 'Force Majeure' as contained in Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed. In view of these observations, it is held that the performance of obligations of Defendants was completely frustrated by Force Majeure situation and the suit property was rendered unfit for the purpose of which the same was let due to Force Majeure.
124. Defendants submitted in their letter dated 02.06.2020 as well as in the Written Statement (which was also filed during Covid period) that suit property had never been enjoyed by the Defendants with regular commercial transactions and business during the Covid Periods i.e. from 25.03.2020 till 27.02.2022 i.e. the day of last notification regarding uplift of the restrictions by the Government and the Defendants are not liable to pay rent of suit property for this period and have filed the copies of different Notifications issued during this period.
125. On the other hand, learned counsel for Plaintiff denied the submissions made by the Defendants and submitted that Defendants have sought to justify non-payment of rent from April, 2020 by raising frivolous and untenable defence of applicability of the Force Majeure NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 61 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:36:01 +0530 Clause which is contained in Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed which makes it abundantly clear that in the event the premises became unusable due to Force Majeure for a continuous period exceeding thirty (30) days, the Lessee was expressly vested with the right to terminate the Lease. However, the Defendants never exercised the said option of termination.
126. On the contrary, they continued to retain possession of the suit property and kept their entire goods stored therein throughout the entire period during which they failed to pay rent to the Plaintiff.
127. Plaintiff has submitted that despite enjoying uninterrupted possession and deriving benefit from the premises, the Defendants deliberately withheld payment of rent for the period from April 2020 to February 2022.
128. Plaintiff has submitted that in the event the premises became unusable due to Force Majeure for a continuous period exceeding thirty (30) days, the Lessee was expressly vested with the right to terminate the Lease. However, the Defendants never exercised the said option of termination. The said submissions of Plaintiff read with Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed proves beyond doubt that the right to terminate the lease was vested in Defendants and not with Plaintiff.
129. Further submission of Plaintiff that however, the Defendants never exercised the said option of termination, is not sustainable since Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed does not mandate the Defendants to vacate the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 62 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:36:08 +0530 suit property and rather provides that in the event the said premises or any part thereof is rendered unfit for the purpose of which the same was let due to Force Majeure, or if the Lessee is prevented from using the same for a period of more than thirty (30) days due to due to Force Majeure then the Lessee shall not be liable to pay to the Lessor, the rent and all other amounts as payable under these presents for the portion of the said premises which is usable by the lessee during the pendency of Force Majeure until such portion of the said premises is restored and made usable again.
130. Therefore, the continuance of Defendants in the suit property during period of Force Majeure as defined in Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed and not paying the rent is protected under Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed and therefore, the issuance of legal notice dated 17.08.2020 for eviction and payment of outstanding lease rentals by the Plaintiff to Defendants is invalid since the same was issued in violation of Clause III. 5 of Lease Deed. Similar was the response/submission of Defendants in their reply dated 01.09.2020 to the legal notice dated 17.08.2020 sent by Plaintiff. Therefore, the tenancy in favour of Defendants continued till expiry of Lease Deed i.e. 26.07.2021, since Lease Deed commenced from 26.07.2012. The submissions of Plaintiff in rejoinder that payment of lease rental is not contingent upon the health of the business operating from the subject property and inability to perform business in a routine manner that arises due to events like lockdown order is primarily in the nature of a business risk undertaken by the Defendants which has to be borne by them and/or Commercial hardship/onerous condition is no NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 63 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:36:14 +0530 ground to not to perform the obligations under the Lease Deed are devoid of merits in view of observations made in respect of Clause III. 5 of Lease Deed read with observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of M/S Haliburton Offshore Services Inc. vs Vedanta Limited & Anr., O.M.P (I) (COMM.) No. 88/2020 on 29 May, 2020 which are reproduced below:
"62. The question as to whether COVID-19 would justify non- performance or breach of a contract has to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Every breach or non- performance cannot be justified or excused merely on the invocation of COVID-19 as a Force Majeure condition. The Court would have to assess the conduct of the parties prior to the outbreak, the deadlines that were imposed in the contract, the steps that were to be taken, the various compliances that were required to be made and only then assess as to whether, genuinely, a party was prevented or is able to justify its non- performance due to the epidemic/pandemic."
131. It is not disputed that Defendants had been regularly paying the rent before outbreak of Covid i.e. March 2020. As regards liability of Defendants to pay rent for the Covid period in terms of Clause III. 5 of Lease Deed, they have claimed exemption from 25.03.2020 till 27.02.2022 by relying on DDMA Notifications and Clause III. 5 of Lease Deed and DW-1 reproduced the same by way of depositions in his affidavit of evidence in Para no. 9 to 13. There has been no cross- examination of DW-1 in respect of these depositions.
132.During his cross examination, PW-1 admitted that COVID-19 started from March 2020 and was in peak in April to June, 2021. He also stated that he could not tell exactly, if the restrictions to run the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 64 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:36:20 +0530 shops/offices/establishments remained till 2022. He denied the suggestion that the Defendants were not liable to pay rent of the period in which Force Majeure clause was active due to spread of COVID-19.
133. Final area of the suit property handed over to the Defendants was disputed since beginning by the Defendants. However, the Defendants had been paying the rent since inception for 3500 sq. ft. since 2012. The present suit has been filed in 2020, and the Defendants have proved their e-mail dated 19.09.2020 which proves that Defendants were disputing the area of lease property under their possession to be less than 3500 sq ft. and continued to dispute even during pendency of the present suit.
134. In May, 2022 the Defendants filed counter-claims i.e. CS (COMM) 535/22 inter alia seeking the decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,36,27,846/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Six Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Six Only) towards excess amount of rent paid by them by submitting that the area of the suit property under possession of Defendants was less than 3500 sq. ft. as the same was not handed over to them. The counterclaim of the Defendants was rejected for being time barred. However, it was rejected since the Defendants had claimed the recovery of excess amount of rent having been paid since 2012 which was found to be time barred in view of the failure of the Defendants to produce the documents on record that the objection in this regard was raised every time within 3 years of the previous objection raised and thus suit was held to be time barred since it is a settled law that plaint cannot be rejected in part. However, in the present case, Defendants have claimed adjustment of excess amount which they have NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 65 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:36:29 +0530 proved to be within limitation on the date of their filing Written Statement to original Plaint by proving the documents filed by the Defendants.
135.The rejection of counterclaim on ground of limitation is not res judicata in respect of the excess amount paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff in the present suit. The recovery amount claimed through CS (COMM) 535/22 was decided on basis of averments made in the plaint of that suit filed by Defendants read with documents filed with the plaint. However, here the adjustment of excess amount is being allowed in view of observations made while deciding Issue No.7 and after the Defendants have successfully proved that the Plaintiff handover possession of area less than 3500 sq. ft. to the Defendants since beginning and that too for the amount which falls within limitation of the amounts claimed by Plaintiff in the present suit. The Defendant has categorically taken this defence in their written statement of having paid excess amount to the Plaintiff in view of being handed over area less than 3500 sq. ft. Had the said adjustment not been permissible, despite being in knowledge of the counterclaim having been rejected, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi would not have observed that:
"10. It merely wanted the Local Commissioner to go to the suit property and to measure the covered area, which is 3500 sq. ft, as per the Plaintiff. As noted, as per Defendants, the covered area is around 2900 sq. ft. only.
....
16. Though, decree with respect to possession had already been passed, the question with respect to mesne profits and rental is yet to be adjudicated.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 66 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:36:40 +0530
19. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case and the fact that the extent of covered area leased out in terms of the abovesaid lease has a direct bearing, with respect to the pending issues, this Court does not find any real requirement of interfering with the impugned order."
136. Hon'ble High Court would not have dismissed CM (M) 4045/2024 vide order dated 21.05.2025 if the rejection of counterclaim of Defendants would have been a bar to adjudication of question with respect to mesne profits and rental. Therefore, the reliance of Plaintiff on law laid down in Sunder Bai and Ors. v. Monit Ram, [2003 (5) M.P.L.J. 158], Ramji @ Rama Narayan Ghuge v. Ratan Waghu Bhujbal & Ors., [1989 Mh.L.J.] and Raja Himanshudhar Singh v. Sri Ram Hitkari & Ors., 1963 SCC OnLine All 35 is unfounded and observations made in these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
137. The present suit has been filed in 2020, and the Defendants have proved through their e-mail dated 19.09.2020 that they were disputing the area of suit property under their possession to be less than 3500 sq. feet and continued to dispute the same even during pendency of the present suit. Learned Local Commissioner has calculated the area of suit property under possession of Defendants to be 3209.35 sq. feet which is proved by his report.
138. Defendants had written e-mails in October 2020 to the Plaintiff stating that The Government of India had relaxed the restrictions but guideline to maintain social distance of 6 feet had still not been NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 67 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:36:47 +0530 withdrawn. The defendant had also written that they were able to resume their business gradually and wished to pay rent of premises in their possession(suit property) although, they were not bound to pay the rent as long as the condition to maintain 6 feet social distance in public place was completely removed by Government of India. Defendants undertook to pay fully monthly lease amount, as and when, Govt of India would permit to run the business freely and without restrictions and later on deposited the amount in term of order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and further paid regularly the user charges of Rs.6,82,731/- per month till the vacation of the 14-15, 1 st Floor, Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
139.In view of aforesaid observations, the defendants have proved that defendants are not liable to pay monthly rent of the suit property in their possession from April 2020 to October 2020.
140. Therefore, beginning from 26.10.2020, the monthly rent for the suit property from 26.10.2020 to 25.07.2021 will be Rs.190.10/- per square feet multiplied by 3209.35 sq. feet which is equal to Rs.6,10,097/-. Thus, the total rent payable for this period by the Defendants to the Plaintiff amounts to Rs.54,90,876/-. The applicable GST stands paid already by the defendants.
141. Issue No. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants and it is held that Plaintiff is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.54,90,876/- towards the arrears of the rent NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 68 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:36:54 +0530 from the defendant for the period from 26.10.2020 to 25.07.2021 for the area of the suit property under their possession i.e. 3209.35 sq. feet and not 3500 sq. feet @ Rs.190.10/- per square feet. It is also held that defendants are not liable to pay monthly rent for the area of the suit property in their possession from April 2020 to October 2020 due to Force Majeure as defined in Clause III. 5 of the Lease Deed.
Issue No.2 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on arrears of rent? If yes, at what rate and for which period?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff. The Defendants have already deposited the amount of Rs. 1,54,34,806.81/- in Court which has been converted into FDRs and interest is being accumulated on the said amount by the Bank and have also paid Rs. 2,68,006.19/- in term of order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Therefore, it is held that the Plaintiff is not entitled to interest on the amount of arrears of the rent amounting to Rs.54,90,876/-. Issue No. 2 is therefore decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants.
Issue No.3 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to past and future mesne profits as prayed for?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
142. While deciding Issue No.1, it has been held that the tenancy in favour of Defendants continued till expiry of Lease Deed i.e. 26.07.2021. The present suit has been filed in 2020 and therefore, since the possession NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 69 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:37:01 +0530 of Defendants was lawful till 26.07.2021, it is held that Plaintiff is not entitled to past mesne profits since there were none on the date of filing of the suit as well as till 26.07.2021.
143. In his affidavit of evidence, PW-1 deposed that the market rent of a similar property situated in the suit property was Rs.192.42 sq ft. per month. He tendered letter dated 08.05.2025 sent by the Plaintiff to the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank as Ex. PW1/14, letter dated 06.06.2025 sent by the Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank to the Plaintiff as Ex. PW1/15 and letter for sanction for renewal of Lease Deed dated 24.01.2025 as Ex. PW-1/16.
144. PW-1 was cross-examined in respect of Ex. PW-1/16 on 08.08.2025 and he admitted that Plaintiff owns First, Second and Third Floor of 14-15, Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. First Floor of this property was leased out to Defendants in 2012. PW-1 admitted that First Floor, Second and Third Floor of 14-15, Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi were on lease on that day i.e. 08.08.2025 and were on rent in 2012 as well. He stated that he was not aware about the quantum of rent of ground, second and third floor of the aforesaid property in July 2012. He was also not aware whether the rent fixed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was the highest among all the tenants of the abovesaid floors in year 2012. He stated that the rent of ground floor is Rs.192/- per sq. ft. approx. PW-1 stated that he was not aware about the current rent of second and third floor and he could not say whether the rent of ground floor in Nehru Place was more than the rent of first, second and third CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 70 of 78 NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:37:06 +0530 floor. He also stated that he could not say whether the rent of first floor is less than 25% from the ground floor and the rent of second floor is less than 50% from ground floor. PW-1 also stated that he was not aware what the rent of ground floor, 2nd floor and 3rd floor in 2021 was.
145. On perusal of Ex. PW-1/16, it is noticed that 'Description' of the document is 'Renewal terms recommended by CO', the area (Carpet) in sq. ft. of basement is mentioned as 210 square feet, the area (Carpet) in sq. ft. of ground floor is mentioned as 3397 square feet, the area (Carpet) in sq. ft. of Mezzanine floor is mentioned as 1417 square feet. Lease period is mentioned as 'From 25.07.2023 to 24.07.2032'. Rent for Ground Floor for first three years is Rs.8,41,064/- (@ Rs.192.42 per sq ft), Rent for Ground Floor for second three years is Rs.9,67,224/- (@ Rs.221.98 per sq ft) and Rent for Ground Floor for third three years is Rs.11,12,308/- (@ Rs.254.48 per sq ft). Hike is @ 15% on the last paid rent. The area mentioned is carpet area and not 'covered area'. The Plaintiff has claimed mesne profits from August 2020 but produced Lease Deed with recommended terms (which means yet not approved) that too of basement, ground floor and Mezzanine Floor and not of First Floor. Further Ex. PW-1/16 does not even pertain to the relevant period so as to serve as a yardstick for computing/assessing the market price of similarly situated properties as that of suit property of the relevant period for which the mesne profits are to be awarded i.e. from 21.07.2021 till 12.06.2025.
146. In view of observations made about Ex. PW-1/16 read with cross examination of PW-1 in respect of Ex. PW-1/16, the Plaintiff has failed to NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 71 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:37:13 +0530 produce any document which could be considered or could assist in assessing the quantum of mesne profits. In para 64 of the written submissions, Plaintiff has claimed mesne profits @ Rs.218.62/- per square feet which comes to Rs.7,01,628/- per month. Therefore, mesne profits are granted for the period from 26.07.2021 to 12.06.2025 @ Rs.218.62/- per square feet for the area of the suit property under possession of Defendants, i.e. 3209.35 sq. feet and not 3500 sq. feet which comes to be Rs.3,22,74,892/-.
147. Issue No.3 is decided in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants and it is held that Plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs.3,22,74,892/- towards future mesne profits i.e. from 27.07.2021 till 27.05.2025. It is also held that Plaintiff is not entitled to receive past mesne profits.
Issue No.4 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on mesne profits? If yes, at what rate and for which period?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff. The Defendants have already deposited the amount of Rs.1,54,34,806.81/- in Court which has been converted into FDRs and interest is being accumulated on the said amount by the Bank and have also paid Rs.2,68,006.19/- in term of order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Therefore, it is held that the Plaintiff is not entitled to interest on mesne profits amounting to Rs.3,22,74,892/-. Issue No. 4 is therefore decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 72 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:37:19 +0530 Issue No.5 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of water bills as prayed for?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
148. Under clause I. (4) of the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed, the Defendants had to pay water bills to the Plaintiff. Clause I. (4) of the lease deed is reproduced below:
"I....
XXX To pay all charges for the consumption for electricity, based on separate meter readings and to pay charges for water consumption based on building meter readings and prorated by floor based on number of floors occupied, in accordance with water bills received from the Delhi Jal Board in that connection."
149. During his cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that Defendants had last made payment towards water charges but he did not remember its particulars. Plaintiff has submitted that Defendants had last made payment towards water charges on 16.04.2019 amounting to Rs. 2,27,634/- which cleared the part of outstanding dues up to that point. However, thereafter, Defendants admittedly did not make any payment towards water charges.
150. Plaintiff has submitted that an amount of Rs.1,95,122.80/- remained outstanding for the period up to 28.02.2023. Plaintiff has further submitted that it duly raised demands in respect of the said outstanding NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 73 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:37:27 +0530 amount, through demand letter dated 22.03.2023, Ex. PW-1/12. This document was filed with amended Replication. Plaintiff has submitted that despite receipt thereof, the Defendants failed and neglected to clear the said dues.
151. It is noticed that plaint was originally filed in the present suit on 23.11.2020 and Plaintiff had not raised any claim towards water charges in that. Plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC dated 30.11.2023 (filed on 01.12.2023) which was allowed vide order dated 01.04.2024.
152. Ex. PW-1/12, demand letter dated 22.03.2023, mentions payment of arrears of water bills on 16.04.2019 and it mentions about yearly water Bills from January 2014 to January 2020 mentioning their year-wise due amount. Defendants had made last payment towards water charges on 16.04.2019 amounting to Rs.2,27,634/-. Plaintiff has wrongly stated that Defendants cleared the part of outstanding dues up to that point. The outstanding dues up to that point were Rs.3,53,452.405/- and not Rs.2,27,634/-. The arrears of Rs.1,25,818.405/- were still pending to be paid as on 16.04.2019. Filing of an amendment application in November 2013 for incorporating relief towards arrears of outstanding water bills prior to 01.04.2021 are clearly barred by limitation as application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed vide order dated 01.04.2024. Thus, amount of Rs.1,25,818.405/- outstanding as on 16.04.2019 is barred by limitation and thus dismissed.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 74 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:37:32 +0530
153. The water Bills tendered by PW-1 in support of arrears of water charges of period prior to 01.04.2021 are therefore not being taken into consideration for being barred by limitation.
154. Ex. PW-1/12 demand letter dated 22.03.2023, mentions further arrears of water bills from June 2021 to March 2022. These water charges are for an amount of Rs. 32,164.34/- payable to DJB and M/s Shiv Shanker Pandey, New Delhi. However, the Plaintiff tendered Water Tanker Bills for the year 2021 and one of 2022 as Mark K to Mark Q as all are photocopies. Original Water Tanker Bill dated 01.10.2021 was produced and thus its photocopy was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/11. However, the said Water Tanker Bill bears name of NSC Delhi and address as 14-15, Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place and therefore does not prove the pro rata proportion payable by Defendants. Further it is not a Bill issued by Delhi Jal Board whereas under Clause I. (4) of the Lease Deed, the Defendants were liable to pay charges for water consumption based on building meter readings and prorated by floor based on number of floors occupied, in accordance with water bills received from the Delhi Jal Board in that connection.
155. Further PW-1 tendered copies of different Challans as Mark R to Mark Z and Mark AA which are again not of Delhi Jal Board but of Shiv Kumar Pandey and those also bear name of NSC and address as 14-15, Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place and therefore does not prove the pro rata proportion payable by Defendants. So besides being photocopies, the water Bills tendered by PW-1 in support of arrears of water charges of NEERA CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 75 of 78 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:37:38 +0530 period after 01.04.2021 could not be proved by Plaintiffs and even otherwise are not covered under Clause I. (4) of the Lease Deed being silent on prorated charges payable by Defendants as PW-1 categorically stated during his cross-examination that Plaintiff is owner of Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor of 14-15, Farm Bhawan, Nehru Place and all were leased out during the relevant period and also because these are not the bills raised by Delhi Jal Board. Therefore, Plaintiff has wrongly described Rs. 32,164.34 towards arrears from June 2021 to March 2022 and Rs. 37, 140/- towards arrears from o1.04.2022 to February 2023 to be due towards water charges from DJB and M/s Shiv Shanker Pandey, New Delhi as none of the Marks or exhibits referred in this para have been raised by Delhi Jal Board.
156. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed miserably to prove that it is entitled to receive Rs.1,95,122.80/- from the Defendants towards arrears of water charges. Therefore, issue No. 5 is decided against Plaintiff and in favour of Defendants and it is held that Plaintiff is not entitled to receive Rs.1,95,122.80/- from the Defendants towards arrears of water charges.
Issue No.6 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest on arrears of water bills as prayed for?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 76 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:37:44 +0530
157. In view of finding on Issue No.5, this Issue is decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants and it held that Plaintiff is not entitled to any interest on the recovery of arrears of water Bills.
RELIEF
158. In view of my findings given on Issue No.1 to 7, the Plaintiff is held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.54,90,876/- from the Defendants towards arrears of the rent and an amount of Rs.3,22,74,892/- towards future mesne profits i.e. from 27.07.2021 till 27.05.2025, thus totaling to Rs.3,77,65,768/-. It is also held that Plaintiff is not entitled to receive interest on this amount since the total amount deposited and paid by Defendants to the Plaintiff is Rs.3,89,15,667/- which is Rs.11,49,893/- more than Rs.3,77,65,768/- and is thus liable to be paid/refunded to the Defendants as claimed by the Defendants in their Written Statement that it is entitled to refund of extra amount paid to the Plaintiff.
159. It is not disputed that Security Deposit of Rs.26,25,000/- deposited by Defendants is still lying with Plaintiff. As per clause 3 of the Lease Deed, the Security deposit was to be refunded to the Defendants upon completion/termination of the lease tenure. The terms of lease deed do not provide for any adjustment of the security deposit against any outstanding of the Defendants towards the Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to receive Security Deposit of Rs.26,25,000/- from the Plaintiff. Parties to bear their own costs.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 77 of 78 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2026.04.27 18:38:14 +0530
160. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. NEERA BHARIHOKE File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by NEERAAnnounced in the open BHARIHOKE
Date:
Court on 27.04.2026 2026.04.27
18:38:22 +0530
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
27.04.2026
Certified that this judgment contains 78 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally
signed by
NEERA (Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
BHARIHOKE
NEERA
BHARIHOKE Date: District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
2026.04.27
18:38:27 South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
+0530
27.04.2026
CS (COMM) No.331/2020 National Seeds Corporation Vs. M/s Cost to Cost Computers Page 78 of 78