Delhi District Court
M/S Jaina Propertiesand Finance Ltd And ... vs M/S Apy Hoteliers And Developers And Ors on 5 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS GOMA DABAS GUPTA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-06: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-008185-2019
RCA No. 124/19
1. M/s Jaina Properties and Finance Ltd.
Through its Director, Sh Rajainder Jaina
2. Rajender Jaina (HUF)
Through Karta Sh Rajainder Jaina
Both at Terapanth Niketan, Flat No. 'P'
First Floor, 6, Sagar Apartment
Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001
.....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. M/s APY Hoteliers and Developers
Third Floor, Plot No.32-33
Community Center, A Block,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
2. Smt Kavita Kapoor
Partner of M/s APY Hoteliers and Developers
W/o Sh Pardeep Kapoor
R/o G-37, Bali Nagar, New Delhi-110015
3. M/s APY Hoteliers Pvt Ltd
208-209, Rajendra Mahaveera Tower-II
32-33, Community Center, A Block,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
4. Deepak Mehra
Director of M/s APY Hoteliers Pvt Ltd
S/o Sh Lavin Kumar Mehra
R/o A-2/128, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029
5. Suraj Mehra
Director of M/s APY Hoteliers Pvt Ltd
RCA No. 124/19 M/s Jaina Properties vs M/s APY Hoteliers & ors. Page 1 of 5
S/o Sh Suresh Narain Mehra
R/o A-2/128, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029
.....RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 09.10.2019
DATE RESERVED FOR ORDERS :08.07.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 05.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the Regular First Appeal u/s 96 of CPC against judgment dated 12.07.2019, passed by Ld. Civil Judge-West, Delhi, in case titled as Jaina Properties and Finance Vs. APY Hoteliers and Developers and Ors., in Suit No. 609435/2016 ( hereinafter referred as 'impugned judgment').
2. Brief facts :-
(A) That the appellants no. 1 and 2 are the owners of property bearing no. RMTT-301A and 301B, on the third floor of the building known as Rajendra's Mahavira Tower-II, constructed on Plot No. 32, A Block, Community Centre, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred as 'suit properties').
(B) That the appellants had licensed the suit properties to respondent no.1 to its partners i.e. Sh. Anil Wadhwa and Sh. Yashpal Minocha vide a License Deed dated 06.09.2002.
(C) That the respondent no.1 was liable to pay license fees @ Rs. 7998/-
per month to appellant no.1 for RMTT-301A and @ Rs. 9000/- per month to appellant no.2 for the space no. RMTT-301B w.e.f. 30.05.2005 upto a period of 33 months and the license fees is liable to be increased thereafter as per terms of the license Deed. The respondent no.1 had RCA No. 124/19 M/s Jaina Properties vs M/s APY Hoteliers & ors. Page 2 of 5 started a restaurant in the name of style of M/s Jupiter Restaurant (earlier known as Dates Restaurant) in the said space along with other spaces. (D) The License Deed was cancelled by the appellants by invoking Clause 20 of the License Deed and respondent no.1 was requested to vacate the premises and hand over the possession of the same to the appellants. However, the respondent no.1 instead of vacating and handing over the possession to the appellants, illegally sub-let the space to respondents no. 3 to 5 without taking any permission from the appellants. Accordingly, legal notices dated 24.01.2007 and 25.09.2007 were issued to the respondents for handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit properties. Upon the failure of the respondent to vacate the same, suit for possession and mesne profits along with future and pendente lite damages was filed and same was decreed with respect to the relief of possession by the impugned order dated 12.07.2019.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, mesne profits and pendente lite/future damages were denied in favour of the appellants and hence, the present appeal has been filed on various grounds which can be primarily concised into following ground :
(i) That the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in observing that the appellants are not entitled for damages since the appellants have failed to prove the present market rate with respect to suit spaces and that the affidavit is not in itself sufficient.
4. Respondents no. 1 to 5 have been served through publication on 29.08.2024. However, no reply to the appeal has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
RCA No. 124/19 M/s Jaina Properties vs M/s APY Hoteliers & ors. Page 3 of 55. I have heard arguments advanced by counsel for the appellants.
6. I have perused the impugned order and the Ld. Trial Court has rightly concluded that the contention of the defendants no. 3 to 5 that defendant no.3 has succeeded defendant no.1 is incorrect and a misplaced contention. Further, the Trial Court has rightly held that the tenancy stood terminated as there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants no. 3 to 5. In fact, it is rightly opined by the Ld. Trial Court that the defendant company ought to have entered into a separate Rent Agreement with the plaintiffs. In the absence of the same, the status of defendants no. 3 to 5 becomes that of unlawful occupants of the suit property as they came into occupation of the suit properties without the consent of the appellants.
7. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled to possession of the suit property. However, the other reliefs or user/occupation charges of the suit property and damages have been declined by the Ld. Trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs/appellants have failed to lead any positive evidence to prove the same.
8. It is a settled law applying the provisions of Section 57 and 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that while calculating mesne profits, certain amount of guess work by the Court is inevitable and acceptable. Section 2(12) of CPC defines mesne profits of property as meaning those profits which the person in lawful possession of such property actually receive or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest with such profit. In the present case, it is an admitted case that RCA No. 124/19 M/s Jaina Properties vs M/s APY Hoteliers & ors. Page 4 of 5 the suit property is being used for commercial purposes. Further, the appellants have rightly placed reliance upon the two License Deeds both dated 06.09.2002, executed between M/s Jaina Properties and Finance through its Director, Sh. Rajender Jaina in favour of M/s APY Hoteliers and Developers, a partnership firm through its partners, Sh. Anil Wadhwa, Sh. Yashpal Minocha and Ms. Kavita Kapoor, whereby, a clear contractual clause for renewal/extension of the License Deed is provided. It is a settled principle of law of contract that parties to a contract are bound by the terms of the contract. In the present case, the liability of the respondents is clearly mentioned in the License Deeds dated 06.09.2002.
9. Hence, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellants are entitled to recover the mesne profits as well as damages as per para no.7 of the License Deeds dated 06.09.2002. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly upon deposit of deficient court fees, if any.
10.Copy of this judgment alongwith trial court record be sent to the Ld. Trial court.
11.Appeal file be consigned to record room as per rules.
Announced in the open court on Digitally signed 05.08.2025 GOMA by GOMA DABAS GUPTA DABAS 2025.08.06 Date:
GUPTA 15:41:08 +0530 (Goma Dabas Gupta) District Judge-06 West District/THC/ Delhi 05.08.2025 RCA No. 124/19 M/s Jaina Properties vs M/s APY Hoteliers & ors. Page 5 of 5