Delhi District Court
Sir Sobha Singh Sons P.Ltd vs Simla Hills Transport Services P.Ltd on 13 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE - 03: NEW DELHI DISTRICT:
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
CS No. 56143/16
CNR No. DLND010002612014
Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd.
Reg. Office: 1-A, Janpath,
New Delhi-110011
Through it's Director/Authorized representative
Shri Preminder Singh
...Plaintiff
Versus
Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd.
N Block, Sujan Singh Park,
New Delhi-110003
Also At:-
Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd.
TDI Infrastructure Ltd.,
UG Floor, Vandana Building,
11 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001
...Defendant
Date of institution : 24.02.2014
Date on which reserved for judgment : 03.05.2025
Date of decision : 13.05.2025
Decision : Decreed
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.1/39
Digitally signed
by SHIRISH
SHIRISH AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13
17:14:10 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I will be deciding the suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and damages.
Plaint/Plaintiff's version
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is the owner and landlord of (a) half portion of ground floor of N Block (b) Quarter No. N-3, First Floor, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi and
(c) remaining half portion of N Block, Ground Floor, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises"), as shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the plaintiff.
3. It is pleaded that the premises was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant by registered lease deed dated 28.09.2005 for a period of 12 years w.e.f 01.07.2005. It is stated that the initial rent was Rs.20,000/- per month which had to increase by 10% after every three years.
4. It is stated that the defendant was a chronic defaulter in making payment of rent. It is pleaded that notices dated 16.03.2013 and 22.03.2013 were issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is stated that when the defendant again defaulted, third notice dated 05.11.2013 was issued by which the defendant was notified of the arrears of rent as on 01.11.2013, which was Rs.1,86,522/-. It is submitted that by this notice, the defendant CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.2/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH Date: AGGARWAL 2025.05.13 17:14:22 +0530 was called upon to clear the arrears of rent within 15 days of the said notice, failing which the lease deed shall be deemed to be revoked and canceled, and the plaintiff will have right of re-entry and repossession.
5. It is pleaded that despite service of the notice dated 05.11.2013, neither arrears of rent nor future rent was paid by the defendant. It is stated that as such, the lease of the defendant stands canceled and revoked giving the plaintiff an immediate right of re-entry and repossession.
6. It is pointed out that under clause 3(a) of the lease deed, in case of three successive defaults in payment of rent, the lease stands determined at the option of the lessor and the lessor shall be entitled for re-entry.
7. It is stated that the plaintiff complied with stipulation under clause 3(a) of the lease deed by affording the defendant an opportunity to make good the violation on its part by paying the rent and clearing the arrears of rent, but it was of no avail.
8. It is stated that after revocation/cancellation of lease deed by issuance of notice dated 05.11.2013, the defendant is liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month, which is the prevailing rate of rent for similarly situated properties in the locality.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.3/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:14:33 +0530
9. On the basis of above averments, the plaintiff has prayed that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and other charges in the sum of Rs.2,50,302/- and pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
Written statement
10. Written statement has been filed. It is stated in the written statement that the alleged notice of termination is ex-facie defective and illegal and there exists no cause or reason for termination of tenancy. It is averred that the notice issued by the plaintiff was not served upon the defendant and in any case, is illegal and therefore the tenancy is subsisting even today.
11. It is stated that admittedly, the premises was let out for a period of 12 years w.e.f. 01.07.2005 with unilateral right of the defendant to continue for a further period of 8 years by exercising right of renewal by way of execution and registration of fresh lease deed.
12. It is stated that the plaintiff company contravened the terms of lease and contrary to the permissible rules, started using the suit premises for commercial purposes and let out premises for commercial purpose.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.4/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:14:44 +0530
13. It is stated that the plaintiff company also made structural changes in the property and on account of massive additions and alterations, the premises was sealed by the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and New Delhi Municipal Council. It is contended that the plaintiff company have raised large scale unauthorized construction and converted the Central Block on the North side of Sujan Singh Park as a Public Hotel and has rented out some of the lock-up garages and servant quarters as petty shops.
14. It is stated that due to illegal action of plaintiff company, sealing action was taken by NDMC and the tenanted premises was sealed. It is stated that the defendant company could not enjoy the premises since the date of its sealing and made repeated requests to the plaintiff company for getting the premises de- sealed. It is averred that in view of the above facts, the plaintiff company is not entitled to claim any rent and was entitled to suspension of rent since the premises was not usable.
15. It is stated that Mr. Preminder Singh is not authorized to institute the present suit. It is averred that there is interpolation of the date in one of the board resolutions filed by the plaintiff.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.5/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:14:59 +0530
16. It is denied that the defendant is a chronic defaulter in making payment of rent and has been clearing all dues from time to time.
17. It is stated that the defendant had informed the plaintiff that due to certain financial constraints, certain payments were delayed.
18. It is denied that notices dated 16.03.2013, 22.03.2013 and 05.11.2013 have been served upon the defendant. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
Replication
19. The plaintiff filed replication in which the averments made in the written statement were denied and the ones made in the plaint were reiterated and affirmed to be correct.
Issues
20. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by order dated 16.12.2014:
(1) Whether there is no cause of action against the defendant?
OPD (2) Whether the plaintiff has suppressed vital and material facts from this Court? OPD CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.6/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:15:12 +0530 (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pay interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? OPP (5) Relief.
Plaintiff's evidence
21. To prove its case, the plaintiff examined its Director Mr. Preminder Singh as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Certificate of Incorporation of plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/1.
(ii) Relevant extracts of Minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 31.03.2012 is Ex.PW1/2.
(iii) Relevant extracts of Minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 20.10.2006 is Ex. PW1/3.
(iv) Relevant extracts of Minutes of meeting of Board of Directors dated 22.11 2014 is Ex.PW1/4.
(v) Photocopy of the Agreement for Lease dated 08.10.1945 in favour of the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/5.
(vi) Photocopy of Registered Lease Deed dated 04.10.2005 in favour of defendant is mark A.
(vii) Office copy of notice dated 16.03.2013 is Ex.PW1/7.
(viii) Postal receipt of notice dated 16.03.2013 is Ex.PW1/8.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.7/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:15:22 +0530
(ix) Returned postal envelop in respect to notice dated 16.03.2013 is Ex. PW1/9.
(x) Office copy of notice dated 16.03.2013 hand received is Ex.PW1/10.
(xi) Office copy of notice dated 22.03.2013 is Ex.PW1/11.
(xii) Postal receipt of notice dated 22.03.2013 is Ex.PW1/12.
(xiii) AD card in respect to notice dated 22.03.2013 is Ex.PW1/13.
(xiv) Office copy of notice dated 05.11.2013 is Ex.PW1/14.
(xv) Postal receipt of notice dated 05.11.2013 is Ex.PW1/15. (xvi) AD Card in respect to notice dated 05.11.2013 is Ex.PW1/16.
(xvii) Returned postal envelope in respect to notice dated 05.11.2013 is Ex.PW1/17.
(xviii)Copy of covering letter dated 05.02.2016 received from defendant is Ex.PW1/18, which is admitted by defendant as Ex.P1 on 08.03.2016 before the Hon'ble Court. (xix) Copy of four DD/ Cheques received by plaintiff alongwith covering letter dated 05.02.2016 are Ex.PW1/19 to PW1/22, which are admitted by defendant as Ex.P2 & P3 on 08.03.2016 before the Hon'ble Court (xx) The site plan of the suit property is Ex.PW-1/23.
22. PW-1 was cross-examined at length and was discharged.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.8/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:15:34 +0530 Defendant's evidence
23. In its defence, the defendant examined its authorized signatory Mr. Vikas Gupta as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Original Board Resolution passed by the Board of Directors dated 12.08.2016 in favour of the defendant is Ex.DW-1/1.
(ii) The photographs showing the suit premises as Ex.DW-1/2 (colly).
(iii) The excel sheet containing the details of the cheques issued and which were never encashed by the plaintiff company is Mark XY.
24. The witness was cross-examined at length and was discharged.
25. The defendant also examined Mr. Vivek Garg, Assistant Architect, Department of Architecture as DW-2 and DW-3 to prove the inspection report dated 10.11.2005 as Ex. DW-2/A, inspection report dated 26.05.2011 as Ex.DW-2/B, sealing details of the premises bearing no. N Block as Ex.DW-3/1 and photographs showing the sealing action on the suit property as Ex.DW-3/2 (colly).
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.9/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:15:47 +0530
26. The defendant also examined its Manager, Administration Mr. Ved Prakash as DW-4. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-4/A and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Copy of Minutes of Board Resolution dated 12.08.2016 is Ex. DW-4/1.
(iii) Excel sheet of the cheques which was issued and replaced by the defendant company towards payment of rents as Ex. DW-4/3.
(iv) Copy of letter written for tender of rent till September 2017 as Ex. DW-4/4.
(v) Postal receipts as Ex. DW-4/5 (colly).
(vi) Inspection report of the suit premises as Mark A.
(vii) Copy of TDS certificates as Mark B.
27. The witness was cross-examined and discharged.
Findings
28. I have heard arguments and considered the record carefully.
29. The issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1 - Whether there is no cause of action against the defendant? OPD Issue No. 2 - Whether the plaintiff has suppressed vital and material facts from this Court? OPD Issue No. 4 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? OPP CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.10/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:15:59 +0530
30. The findings of the Court on the above three issues are intertwined and therefore, these three issues will be decided together.
31. At the outset, the objection of the defendant that Mr. Preminder Singh is not authorized to file the present case will be decided. It is stated in the written statement that Mr. Preminder Singh does not have authorization since in the board resolution dated 25.10.2006, there is interpolation with respect to the date i.e. 02.04.2012 put at the bottom of the signatures of Brig. Gurbux Singh.
32. It is pertinent to note that PW-1 Mr. Preminder Singh was not cross-examined on this aspect. It was not put to him that the signatures of Brig. Gurbux Singh on the document Ex. PW-1/3 are forged and fabricated. No opportunity was granted to PW-1 to explain the alleged interpolation with respect to the date since PW-1 was not questioned on this aspect. Since he was not cross- examined on this aspect, the defendant is deemed to have accepted the testimony of PW-1 appearing in paragraphs number 2, 3 and 4 of his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A in which it has been affirmed that Mr. Preminder Singh is authorized to institute the present suit. In the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) Th. Lrs. vs. Muddasani Sarojana AIR 2016 SC 2250, the following was held:
"16. Moreover, there was no effective cross-examination made on the plaintiff's witnesses with respect to factum of CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.11/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:16:11 +0530 execution of sale deed, PW.1 and PW-2 have not been cross examined as to factum of execution of sale deed. The cross- examination is a matter of substance not of procedure one is required to put one's own version in cross-examination of opponent. The effect of non cross-examination is that the statement of witness has not been disputed. The effect of not cross-examining the witnesses has been considered by this Court in Bhoju Mandal & Ors. v. Debnath Bhagat & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1906. This Court repelled a submission on the ground that same was not put either to the witnesses or suggested before the courts below. Party is required to put his version to the witness. If no such questions are put the court would presume that the witness account has been accepted as held in M/s. Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. AIR 1958 Punjab 440."
33. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the documents proved by the plaintiff as Ex. PW-1/2, Ex. PW-1/3 and Ex. PW-1/4. No other representative of the plaintiff has come forward to state that Mr. Preminder Singh has instituted the present suit on his own and that it has not been done at the instance of the plaintiff company.
34. For the above reasons, there is no reason to doubt the authorization of Mr. Preminder Singh to have instituted the present suit. The objection of the defendant in this regard stands decided.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.12/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:16:20 +0530 Relief for possession
35. The plaintiff has asserted the right to recover possession of the tenanted premises on following two grounds:
(I) Right to terminated lease under Clause 3(a) of lease deed on account of three consecutive defaults. (II) Expiry of the lease period during pendency of the present suit.
(I) Right to terminated lease under Clause 3(a) of lease deed:
36. The plaintiff has claimed possession of the tenanted premises by invoking clause 3(a) of the lease deed proved as Ex.DW-1/P1. This clause provides that in case of three successive defaults in the payment of rent, the lessor will give a notice to the lessee for granting an opportunity to the lessee to make good the alleged violation within a reasonable period and in the event of failure, the lease may at the option of lessor stand determined and in such an event, the lessor will be entitled to take back possession of the tenanted premises.
37. It is testified by PW-1 that after making some payment on 31.07.2013 for the previous period, the defendant did not make any payment and by notice dated 05.11.2013 proved as Ex.PW-1/14, the defendant was notified of the arrears of rent and was called upon to clear the arrears with interest within 15 days.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.13/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:16:32 +0530
38. It is deposed by PW-1 that despite service of the said notice, the defendant did not make payment and as such, the lease of the defendant stood canceled and revoked, giving a right to the plaintiff to re-enter and repossess the tenanted premises.
Defendant not liable to pay rent due to sealing?
39. The defendant has stated that there were no arrears of rent and it has been clearing all dues from time to time. Without prejudice to this contention, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the defendant was not liable to pay rent for the period for which the notice Ex.PW-1/14 has been issued. He has pointed out that the tenanted premises was admittedly sealed from January, 2011 till December, 2014. He has argued that the property was sealed by the authorities due to the misuse and violations committed by the plaintiff. It is stated that since the premises was lying sealed due to the actions of the plaintiff, the defendant could not have utilized the premises and is therefore, not liable to pay the rent for the period for which the property remained sealed.
40. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD identified as mark Z and has argued that the Tribunal has noted that the premises was sealed due to violations committed by M/s Sobha Singh & Sons, the plaintiff herein.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.14/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:16:43 +0530
41. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has pointed out that even though the tenanted premises is a residential property, the plaintiff rented it to the defendant for non-residential purposes due to which it was sealed.
42. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the premises was sealed due to the defendant since the defendant used the premises for non-residential purposes. He has drawn the attention of the Court to clause (b) of page no. 9 of the lease deed Ex.DW-1/P1 which provides that the lessee shall use the tenanted premises for purposes for which it was allotted to the plaintiff. It is argued that the defendant was aware of the purposes for which the property was allotted to the plaintiff and yet, used it for non-
permitted use.
43. The Court is of the opinion that since the defendant/lessee agreed that it will use the tenanted premises for the purposes for which it was allotted to the plaintiff/lessor by agreement for lease executed on 08.10.1945, the defendant is presumed to be aware of the contents of the agreement dated 08.10.1945.
44. The agreement dated 08.10.1945 has been proved as Ex. PW-1/5. On conjoint reading of clauses II and XII of this agreement, it is evident that the property was leased to the plaintiff for residential purposes. The defendant is presumed to be aware of this restriction on the use. Also, it is pertinent to note that on the page after page no. 2 of lease deed Ex. DW-1/P1, CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.15/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:16:56 +0530 which records the 'Deed Related Detail', the property type is mentioned as 'Residential'.
45. Since the defendant herein was always aware of terms of the lease of the year 1945 that the premises is a residential property and knowing that took it for non-residential purpose, the defendant cannot now be permitted to take advantage of the plaintiff renting out the property to the defendant for non- residential purpose, even if it is true.
46. The defendant cannot claim exemption from making payment of rent on account of sealing of the property since the defendant was always aware that the property is residential and still chose it to use it for non-residential purposes. It cannot pin the blame entirely on the plaintiff for the sealing.
47. For the above reasons, it cannot be held that the defendant is not liable to make payment of rent for the period during which the tenanted premises was sealed.
Notice not served upon defendant?
48. The next defence taken by the defendant is that the notice dated 05.11.2013 proved as Ex.DW-1/4 was not served upon the defendant. DW-4 has deposed in paragraph no. 5 of his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-4/A that the notice was not served upon the defendant. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the notice was served upon TDI Infrastructure Ltd. as is CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.16/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:17:09 +0530 evident from the acknowledgment of the Department of Posts proved as Ex.PW-1/16. He has pointed out that the said acknowledgment bears the signatures and stamp of TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and not that of the defendant.
49. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that this submission made orally by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has not been mentioned in the written statement or in the affidavits tendered in evidence by the witnesses of the defendant. Only a bald ipse dixit averment was made in the written statement and affidavits that the notice was not served upon the defendant. It has not been specifically stated that the notice was served upon TDI Infrastructure and never reached the authorized representatives of the defendant herein. Mentioning of such an averment in the pleading of the defendant is significant in light of the fact that summons of the suit sent to the defendant were also received by TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and yet the defendant entered appearance before the Court.
50. It is also significant to note the three vakalatnamas which have been filed by the different counsels of the defendant. All three vakalatnamas have been executed on behalf of the defendant in favour of the advocates by one Mr. Om Prakash who has claimed that he is the AR/signatory of the defendant company. The first vakalatnama dated 27.01.2016 bears the name of Mr. Om Prakash stating to be Director/authorized signatory of CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.17/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:17:19 +0530 the defendant and it bears the stamp of the defendant company i.e. Simla Hills Transport Services Pvt. Ltd. Ironically, the second vakalatnama dated 03.01.2019 has also been signed by Mr. Om Prakash. On the top portion of this vakalatnama, he has stated that he is AR of the defendant company. However, the stamp appended on the signatures of Mr. Om Prakash provide that Mr. Om Prakash is the authorized signatory of TDI Infrastructure Ltd. The stamp appended is that of TDI Infrastructure Ltd.
51. The third vakalatnama has also been signed by Mr. Om Prakash as the signatory for the defendant Simla Hills Transport Services Pvt. Ltd.
52. The Vakalatnama which bears the stamp of TDI Infrastructure Ltd. authorized Mr. Rohit Gupta and Mr. Devesh Gupta, Advocates to represent the defendant. On 15.04.2019, 04.02.2020, 18.08.2020, 11.11.2020, 09.03.2021, 12.11.2021, 21.04.2022, 24.03.2023, 12.09.2023 and 12.12.2023, their appearances have been recorded as advocates for the defendant.
53. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has not been able to furnish any explanation as to how these advocates, who had been authorized by TDI Infrastructure Ltd., were actually representing the defendant. It is not the case of the defendant that the lawyers who entered appearance before the court after service of summons upon TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and after execution of CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.18/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:17:31 +0530 vakalatnama in their favour by TDI Infrastructure Ltd., were not actually representing the defendant.
54. Mr. Ved Prakash, a witness of the defendant deposed as DW-4. In his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-4/A, he deposed that he is working as Manager, Administration with Simla Hills Transport Services Pvt. Ltd. It is stated in his affidavit that he is the authorized signatory of the defendant company and is well conversant with the facts of the present case. He further deposed that he has been working with the defendant company since more than 10 years.
55. However, during his cross-examination, he admitted that he is not employed with the defendant company and he is working with the sister concern of the defendant company i.e. TDI Infrastructure, which is the group company.
56. It is evident from the testimony of DW-4 that even though he is employed with TDI Infrastructure Ltd., he is the authorized signatory and Manager, Administration of the defendant company and is aware of the facts of the present case.
57. It is evident from the above facts and circumstances that TDI Infrastructure Ltd. is the group company and a sister concern of the defendant company.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.19/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:17:42 +0530
58. The defendant is trying to take advantage of the technicality that the acknowledgment proved as Ex.PW-1/16 bears the stamp of TDI Infrastructure Ltd.
59. It is pertinent to note that the letter proved as Ex.PW-1/18 written by the defendant to the plaintiff bears the address of the defendant company at which the notice Ex.PW-1/14 was sent. Since at the said address, the notice was received by TDI Infrastructure Ltd., it is evident that both these companies operate from the said address.
60. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that notice received by TDI Infrastructure Ltd. is notice to the defendant company since their employees/signatories/authorized representatives and addresses are the same. The defendant repeatedly defaults in making payment of rent and is now trying to protect its possession only due to the mere fact that the acknowledgment Ex.PW-1/16 bears the stamp of TDI Infrastructure Ltd. This cannot be permitted. If service of summons upon TDI Infrastructure Ltd. is proper service upon the defendant, so will be the service of notice Ex. PW-1/14 which was received by TDI Infrastructure Ltd.
61. It is the own case of the defendant that rent for certain months of year 2013 was tendered to the plaintiff in the year 2016 by sending of letter proved as Ex. PW-1/18. There should CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.20/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:17:52 +0530 be consequences for not making payment of rent on time, despite the reminder sent to the defendant by issuance of notice dated 05.11.2013 proved as Ex. PW-1/14.
62. Since the tenanted premises was sealed, the plaintiff could not have done more than sending notice to the only other address of the defendant, which happens to be shared by the sister concern of the defendant company.
63. This Court is of the opinion that for doing substantial justice, the Court should ignore the technicality that the acknowledgment bears the stamp of TDI Infrastructure Ltd.
64. It is pertinent to note that DW-4 who claims to be aware of the facts of the present case deposed during his cross- examination that he cannot say whether the notice Ex.PW-1/14 was received by the defendant. Since he is not aware if the notice was received by the defendant, he is not competent to deny service of notice.
65. The notice was sent at the correct address of the defendant company and was duly received. For the above reasons, it cannot be held that the notice was not received by the defendant.
Requirement of issuance of second notice?
66. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that clause 3(a) of the lease deed requires that after issuance of notice by which CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.21/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH Date: AGGARWAL 2025.05.13 17:18:07 +0530 the defendant is to be granted an opportunity to make payment of arrears of rent, the lessor/plaintiff was required to issue another notice terminating the tenancy.
67. The Court does not agree with this submission. The lessor cannot be expected to keep issuing notices for enforcing its right of getting its property back from its tenant. As per the lease deed, an opportunity should have been given by the lessor to the lessee to make good the violation of the agreement, which has been done by issuance of notice proved as Ex.PW-1/14. After doing so, since the lessee did not make payment within a reasonable time, the plaintiff has exercised its right to terminate the tenancy and taking back possession, by instituting the present suit. Service of summons of the present suit is sufficient notice to the defendant of the intention of the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy and take back possession.
Defective notice?
68. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that by notice dated 05.11.2013 proved as Ex. PW-1/14, the plaintiff demanded rent for November 2013 as well. It is stated that inclusion of rent for November 2013 made the notice invalid since the defendant had the option of paying rent by the 7th day of the month and therefore it could not have been demanded on the 5th day of November. It is argued that since the notice is invalid, the plaintiff cannot invoke clause 3(a) for terminating the lease.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.22/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:18:17 +0530
69. The Court is of the opinion that merely because the rent for November was included in the notice Ex. PW-1/14 two days prior to the deadline for making payment for November, that did not make the notice entirely invalid. It is not the case of the defendant that it made payment for the preceding months. The purpose of requirement to issue notice before terminating the lease is to give an opportunity to the lessee to make payment of arrears of rent, to meet the situation where non-payment is unintentional, non-deliberate and due to bonafide reasons.
70. This Court is of the opinion that since the defendant did not make payment of arrears of rent within a reasonable period after giving of notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the three successive defaults, the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the lease and repossess the tenanted premises.
(II) Expiry of the lease period during pendency of the present suit:
71. Tenancy was created in favour of the defendant by execution of registered lease deed dated 28.09.2005 proved as Ex. DW-1/P1. By this lease deed, the tenanted premises was let out for a period of 12 years w.e.f. 01.07.2005. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that during pendency of the suit, the lease period has expired and therefore, on this ground as well, plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the tenanted premises.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.23/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH Date: AGGARWAL 2025.05.13 17:18:28 +0530
72. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that decree of possession cannot be granted on the ground of expiry of tenancy period since the said ground has not been mentioned in the plaint. He stated that even otherwise, the lease period has not expired since as per the terms of the lease, the defendant had the unilateral right to extend the lease by another eight years. It is further stated that the defendant is also entitled to exclude the period during which the premises remained sealed, from the lease period.
Ground of expiry of lease period not pleaded:
73. There is no gainsaying the fact that in the ordinary course of litigation, the rights of parties are crystallized on the date of institution of the suit. However, in certain circumstances, the Court is not precluded from taking note of developments subsequent to the commencement of the litigation, when such events have a direct bearing on the relief claimed by a party or on the entire purpose of the suit. This was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaiv Dinshaw Irani Vs. Tehmtan Irani (2014) 8 SCC 294. It was also held in this case that although the ordinary rule of civil law is that rights of the parties stands crystallized on the date of institution of the suit, yet the Court has power to mould the relief if the following three conditions are satisfied:
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.24/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH Date: AGGARWAL 2025.05.13 17:18:38 +0530
(i) That the relief as originally claimed has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted.
(ii) That taking note of the subsequent event will shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done.
(iii) That such subsequent event is promptly brought to the notice of the Court and is in accordance with the procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise.
74. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff by invoking the clause of the lease deed that in case of three consecutive defaults in payment of rent, if the lessee does not make payment within a reasonable period after receiving notice from the lessor to make payment, the lessor will be entitled to re-possess the tenanted premises. As such, the plaintiff has invoked the clause of non-payment for terminating the lease and for seeking possession.
75. However, since during the pendency of the present suit, as per the plaintiff, the term of the lease expired, the plaintiff wants that eviction order be passed on the ground of expiry of the lease period. Even though this ground has not been mentioned in the plaint, it is a subsequent development of which the Court can take note since it has a direct bearing on the relief claimed by the plaintiff and on the purpose of the suit.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.25/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH Date: AGGARWAL 2025.05.13 17:18:47 +0530
76. No purpose will be served by calling upon the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and institute a fresh one on the new ground that tenancy period has expired.
77. Since the present case remained pending before the Court for a long time after it was instituted in the year 2014, it will be unjust to make the plaintiff to go through another round of litigation only to bring on record that the lease period has expired. This is something which is evident from the record of this case itself.
78. Invoking the ground of expiry of lease period is not something by which the defendant will be taken by surprise.
79. In the case of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date the suitor institutes the legal proceedings. It was noted that it is equally clear that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process.
80. It was held that if a fact, arising after the lis has come to Court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of molding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.26/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.13 17:18:57 +0530 Court, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. It was held that equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with the view to promote substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that courts can take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the suit, provided that the rules of fairness are scrupulously obeyed.
81. This Court is of the view that no specific provision or fairplay will be violated if the Court takes into consideration the fact that during the pendency of the suit, the tenancy period has expired and on that ground as well, the plaintiff is entitled to eviction of defendant.
82. In the case of Shri Radhakishan Temple Trust Maithan Vs. M/s Hindco Rotatron Pvt. Ltd. 2011 SCC Online Delhi 5500, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi took note of a subsequent event and decreed the suit. It was held that ordinarily a suit has to be decided on the basis of cause of action which existed on the date on which suit is filed. It was held that this technical rule has been whittled down in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that Courts are empowered to take notice of subsequent events under Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC to shorten the litigation. It was noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.27/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:19:08 +0530 held that the object of taking note of subsequent events is to shorten the litigation and to do substantive justice.
83. It was held that when the subsequent events bring out an admitted or categorical position, they can be used to pass appropriate orders on the basis of such admitted subsequent events/facts.
84. In the present case, the lease deed Ex.DW-1/P1 has been admitted and so are its contents. The only dispute is with regard to the interpretation of clauses, which shall be discussed hereinafter. However, since this document and its contents have been admitted, the Court is empowered to take note of the duration of lease and in case the same has expired, pass eviction order on its basis.
85. The judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant in the cases of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491, Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148, Shivaji Balaram Haibatti Vs. Avinash Maruthi Pawar (2018) 11 SCC 652 and Arikala Narass Reddy Vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari (2014) 5 SCC 312, only lay down the general law that in the absence of pleadings on part of the plaintiff, the defendant cannot resist or defend the case and that the Court cannot take into account a ground which has not been setup in the pleadings.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.28/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:19:18 +0530
86. It is a failure of the judicial system that the suit of the plaintiff remained pending for 11 years and could not be decided by the Court and if during the long pendency of the suit, another ground of eviction became due to the plaintiff, that should be taken into consideration by the Court instead of calling upon the plaintiff to amend the plaint or institute a fresh suit on the new ground. Amendment of the plaint would relegate the suit back to the stage of completion of pleadings, which the Court is not inclined to impose upon the plaintiff.
87. This is particularly because the Court does not see any reason for the defendant to be prejudiced if the ground of expiry of duration of lease is taken into consideration by the Court while deciding the relief of possession.
88. For the above reasons, the Court will now proceed to take into consideration the said additional and subsequent fact which has arisen during pendency of the suit and determine if that entitles the plaintiff to the relief of possession.
Expiry of lease period:
89. The following clauses of the lease deed Ex.DW-1/P1 are relevant to decide if the lease period has indeed expired:
"AND WHEREAS the said Lessee has approached the lessor to extend the lease of the said premises through its Director Shri CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.29/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:19:29 +0530 Gopal Krishan for a period of 12 (Twelve) years with effect from 01.07.2005 and thereafter, with a unilateral right to the Lessee to continue for a period of 8 (Eight) years with the lease at its sole option and such right of renewal of lease shall be exercised through the execution and registration of a fresh Lease Deed, on the same terms and conditions except for rent, upon every renewal thereof. The Lessor has agreed to renew and extend the said lease of the Demised Premises for a further period of 8 (Eight) years by executing a Lease Deed as aforesaid, on the following condition which are also acceptable to the Lessee"
"(e) This lease is for a period of 12 (twelve) years. However, the Lessor and the Lessee have agreed to renew and extend the said lease in future for further period of 8 (eight) years only at the option of the Lessee by execution of a fresh Lease Deed."
Extension of lease period at the option of lessee:
90. The above clauses of the lease deed provide an option to the defendant to extend the lease period for a further period of eight years. The initial period of twelve years expired on 30.06.2017. It is not the case of the defendant that it has expressed an intention to extend the lease for a further period of eight years.
91. In the case of Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HEDE and Company (2007) 5 SCC 614, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the distinction between extension and renewal of lease is chiefly CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.30/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.05.13 17:19:38 +0530 that in case of renewal, a new lease is required, while in the case of extension, the same lease continues in force.
92. Even if the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that after expiry of lease period of twelve years, lease had to be extended and not renewed, which as per law does not require execution of a fresh lease deed is accepted, yet in view of the agreement that the parties arrived at, a fresh lease deed had to be executed if the lease had to be extended. The above clauses of the lease deed specifically provide that the lease can be renewed and extended through the execution and registration of a fresh lease deed.
93. Not only has the fresh lease deed not been executed, the defendant has not even stated that it had expressed its intention to extend/renew the lease to the plaintiff herein. The lease agreement did not provide an automatic renewal of lease period by another eight years. It is an option that has been provided to the defendant and if the defendant wanted to exercise that option, it had to do it in the manner provided in the lease deed, which is by way of execution of fresh lease deed.
94. Only a bald assertion has been made that the lease period can be unilaterally extended by the defendant. As per the lease deed, the lease could be extended at the sole option of the lessee on the same terms and conditions, except for rent. This implies CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.31/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:19:50 +0530 that for the extended lease period, the parties had to decide upon the new rate of rent. There is not even an averment in the written statement as to what was the new rate of rent during the purported extended period of lease.
95. For the above reasons, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the duration of the lease stood extended by eight years after expiry of the initial period of twelve years is misconceived and not tenable.
Extension of lease period due to sealing:
96. It is not in dispute that the tenanted premises could not be used by the defendant from January, 2011 till December, 2014 since it was sealed during this period. It is the case of the defendant that the premises was sealed due to the misuse by the plaintiff. It is argued by him that since the property remained sealed during this long period and could not be used by the defendant, the period during which the property remained sealed should be added to the twelve years duration of lease.
97. The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff alone cannot be blamed for sealing of property and the defendant cannot benefit from it since the defendant was privy to the misuse. This finding shall be discussed in detail later in this judgment.
However, the defendant cannot be granted benefit of the period CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.32/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:20:00 +0530 during which the property remained sealed and the lease duration cannot be extended on that account.
98. Since the duration of the lease was only twelve years which expired on 30.06.2017, the plaintiff becomes entitled to take back possession of the tenanted premises from the defendant even on this ground.
Relief for recovery of arrears of rent
99. The plaintiff has sought recovery of Rs.2,50,302/- as arrears of rent and other charges for the period upto 31.01.2014 alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum. However, during the course of arguments on 03.05.2025, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff gave up the claim to the extent of recovery of Rs.58,962/- and restricted its claim to recover arrears of rent for the period starting on 01.08.2013.
100. It is not in dispute that the monthly rate of rent and other charges (water and service charge) for the period from August, 2013 till January, 2014 was Rs.31,890/-.
101. Even though the defendant has contended in the written statement that it has cleared all dues, during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant admitted that rent and other charges for the above period have not been received by the plaintiff. He stated that rent was tendered by the defendant by CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.33/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:20:10 +0530 issuing letter dated 05.02.2016 proved as Ex.PW-1/18, but was not accepted by the plaintiff.
102. He stated that even though the defendant tendered the rent, it was not required to be paid since during the said period from August, 2013 till January, 2014, the tenanted premises remained sealed owing to the misuse by the plaintiff.
103. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that since the property could not have been used by the defendant due to sealing, the defendant is not required to pay rent for the period during which the property remained sealed.
104. In support of the contention that the property was sealed due to misuse/violations by the plaintiff, the defendant has relied upon order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, identified as Mark Z.
105. As has already been held hereinabove at the time of entering into the lease agreement, the defendant was already aware that the tenanted premises can be used only for residential purposes and yet, it took the property for office purposes.
106. Since the defendant was aware that the tenanted premises cannot be used for non-residential purposes, it cannot now seek exemption from payment of rent by arguing that the property was CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.34/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:20:22 +0530 sealed due to violations done by the plaintiff. The defendant was privy to the violations. The judgments passed in the cases of Surendra Nath Bibra Vs. Stephen Court Ltd. 1966 SCC Online SC 121 and Raichurmatham Prabhakar Vs. Rawatmal Dugar (2004) 4 SCC 766, relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant in support of his argument that the rent will be suspended if tenant is dispossessed without any fault on its part, does not apply to the facts of the present case since it cannot be held that the tenant herein was dispossessed without any fault on its part. The tenant was always aware of the conditions of lease of the year 1945 by which the plaintiff was given the land in question and yet chose to use the property for non-residential purpose.
107. Therefore, the defendant should pay rent from August, 2013 onwards at the rate of Rs.31,890/- till termination of tenancy.
108. It has already been held hereinabove that since the defendant did not make payment of arrears of rent within reasonable time period after issuance of notice dated 05.11.2013, the plaintiff stood entitled to terminate the tenancy.
109. Institution of the present suit is disclosure of intention to terminate the tenancy. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Nopani CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.35/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:20:32 +0530 Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh AIR 2008 SC 673, in which it was held that "it is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant".
110. Suit has been instituted on 22.02.2014. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendant on 24.04.2014. Therefore, the tenancy is deemed to have been terminated w.e.f 24.04.2014. The defendant should therefore pay rent to the plaintiff for the period upto 24.04.2014.
111. On 03.05.2025, during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff admitted that the plaintiff had obtained the benefit of the TDS amounts deposited by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, details of which have been mentioned in the document Ex. DW-4/3. He stated that the plaintiff does not have any objection if the said amounts are adjusted against what the Court finds to be due to the plaintiff.
112. The total amount of TDS deposited by the defendant as per the document Ex.DW-4/3 is Rs.19,556 + Rs.8,067 + Rs. 32,267 + Rs.32,267 + Rs.16,133 = Rs.1,08,290.
113. In view of the aforementioned facts, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.31,890/- per month w.e.f 01.08.2013 till 24.04.2014 (8 months and 24 days) minus Rs.108,290/- = Rs.1,72,342/-.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.36/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:20:44 +0530 Relief for recovery of mesne profits
114. As has already been held hereinabove, the tenancy stood terminated on 24.04.2014. Therefore, for the period starting on 25.04.2014 till possession is obtained by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits from the defendant.
115. Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC provides that in a suit for recovery of mesne profits, the Court may pass a decree for directing an enquiry into the mesne profits.
116. Accordingly, a preliminary decree be drawn holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits from the defendant for the period starting from 25.04.2014 till vacant possession is delivered to the plaintiff. An enquiry shall be conducted into the market rate of rent so that the quantum of mesne profits can be determined.
117. Parties are directed to file their respective affidavits and other material to bring on record the market rate of rent.
118. For the above reasons, issues no. 1 and 2 are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff since it cannot be held that the plaint lacks cause of action and that the plaintiff has suppressed vital and material facts.
119. Issue no. 4 is decided in accordance with the findings given by the court hereinabove with respect to the grant of reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.37/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:20:54 +0530 Issue No. 3 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pay interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
120. The plaintiff should also be awarded interest on the arrears of rent, despite the fact that the defendant had tendered rent to the plaintiff and was refused to be accepted by the plaintiff. This is because the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff was justified in refusing to accept rent. The rent was tendered by the defendant after considerable period of delay on 05.02.2016, which was during the pendency of this suit.
121. The defendant has not furnished any justification for tendering rent belatedly. The Court is of the opinion that interest claimed at the rate of 24% per annum is excessive and unreasonable. The Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
122. It has already been held hereinabove that the tenancy is deemed to have been terminated w.e.f 24.04.2014. Therefore, the defendant should pay interest on the arrears of rent to the plaintiff for the period starting on 25.04.2014.
Issue No. 5 - Relief.
123. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Plaintiff is held entitled to recover possession of the tenanted CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.38/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:21:03 +0530 premises i.e. (a) half portion of ground floor of N Block (b) Quarter No. N-3, First Floor, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi and
(c) remaining half portion of N Block, Ground Floor, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the plaintiff proved as Ex. PW-1/23, except the portion marked as ABCD.
124. Plaintiff is held entitled to recover arrears of rent and other charges after adjusting the TDS amount which comes to Rs.1,72,342/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f 25.04.2014 till realization.
125. Plaintiff is also held entitled to recover damages/mesne profits at the rate which shall be determined after conducting of inquiry for the period starting on 25.04.2014 till possession is obtained by the plaintiff.
126. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
(Announced in the open Court on 13.05.2025) (Dr. Shirish Aggarwal) District Judge-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi CS No. 56143/16 Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Simla Hills Transport Service (P) Ltd. Pages No.39/39 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.05.13 17:21:15 +0530