Delhi District Court
Sudhir Gupta vs M/S Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Ltd.Through ... on 13 November, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL)-04, SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
DLSW010092252023
CS (Comm) No. 462/2023
Sudhir Gupta
S/o Sh. K. L. Gupta
R/o B-1/46, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058. .....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Ltd.
Ground Floor, 4-7C, DDA Shopping Complex
Off. C. V. Raman Road, New Delhi-110025.
Through Its Director/Managing Director ...... Defendant
Date of institution : 05.10.2023
Date when file received : 21.12.2023
Date when order reserved : 29.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 13.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1 By this judgment, I will dispose of suit for recovery of Rs.56,21,560/- along with interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 1/20 22 The brief facts of the case as per plaintiff are that plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the property bearing no. B-3/67, Ground Floor, Dharam Marg, Janakpuri, Delhi-110058 measuring 114 sq. meters and earlier his father was the sole and absolute owner of this property by virtue of perpetual lease deed dated 06.11.1968. The father of plaintiff Sh. K. L. Arora expired on 19.01.2019.
It is stated that this property was let out to defendant company by virtue of duly registered lease agreement dated 31.08.2018 executed between Sh. K. L. Gupta, father of the plaintiff, and defendant company. It is stated that initially the property was let out to defendant company for a period of 9 years at a month rent of Rs.2,85,000/- plus GST subject to increase of 15% on the last paid rent after every three years. The effect date for starting the monthly rent was 16.08.2018 and there was a lock-in period of 24 months (the lessee cannot terminate the agreement during the initial 24 months of this lease). It is stated that the rent was to be paid on or before 7 th day of every English Calender month in advance through RTGS/NEFT/Cheque. The electricity and water consumption charges was to be paid at actual basis to the concerned authorities and the possession was to be handed over to the lessee after settling all the outstanding CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 2/20 3 dues.
3 It is stated that the defendant company had not been paying rent to the plaintiff in time and the rent is due to the plaintiff from February 2020. It is stated that despite several requests defendant company did not clear the arrears of rent and started insisting the plaintiff to reduce or waive the rent due to Covid-19. It is stated that in case of default of payment of rent, the lessee shall be liable to pay interest @18% per annum. It is stated that vide email dated 22.06.2020 the defendant intimated the plaintiff for vacation of the property and sent the keys of the premises through courier. The plaintiff sent legal notice dated 08.07.2020 to the defendant which was duly replied by the defendant. It is stated that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.56,21,560/- to the plaintiff on account of arrears of rent, interest, electricity charges water consumption damages etc. Plaintiff also initiated pre-litigation mediation with DLSA South- West. None appeared on behalf of defendant and the same ended as "Non-Starter" on 28.08.2023.
The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking decree of recovery of money of Rs.56,21,560/- along with ancillary reliefs.
4 In written statement, defendant stated that the lease CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 3/20 4 agreement relied upon by the plaintiff is not legally tenable and in accordance with law. It is stated that the defendant had to shut down its business and vacate the premises of the plaintiff due to Corona virus. It is further stated that defendant was not liable to pay any lease charges to the plaintiff due to lock down as the leased premises was inaccessible to the defendant. It is stated that defendant tried to negotiate the rent with the plaintiff as the similar properties in the vicinity of lease premises was on lower rent. The rent could not be negotiated and therefore the defendant had given notice to vacate the premises to the plaintiff on 04.02.2020. It is stated that defendant suffered huge financial loss due to huge amount of rent. It is stated that defendant sent email dated 26.04.2020 to the plaintiff for waiver of rent for the period of lock down beginning 20.03.2020 till the beginning of normal business operations. It is stated that the rent for the month of January 2020 had been duly paid by the defendant. It is further stated that the electricity charges had also been paid till 04.03.2020. It is stated that the defendant handed over the premises to the plaintiff by adjusting the three months advance rent/security paid by the defendant. Rest of the contents of plaint are denied.
5 In replication, plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 4/20 5 facts of the plaint and denied those of written statement of defendant.
6 On 25.04.2024, from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1 Whether the defendant is within his right to not to pay rent during Covid period in view of clause 12.5 of the lease agreement dated 31.08.2018 and as per the allegations in the written statement in this regard? OPD.
2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent for the period 01.01.2020 to 15.08.2020? OPP.
3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest of Rs.18,52,500/-
@ 18% per annum or at any other rate? OPP.
4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.46,930/-
of electricity bill from defendant. OPP.
5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.1,17,043/-
of Delhi Jal Board bill from defendant. OPP.
6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rent of three months notice period amount to Rs.8,55,000/-? OPP.
7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.25 lakhs? OPP.
8 Relief?
7 To prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He led examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and deposed in terms of the facts of the plaint and relied on following documents:-
Sr.no. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) pages CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 5/20 6 1 Perpetual lease deed dated 06.11.1968 Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) 8 2 Relinquishment deed dated 28.09.2018 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) 4 3 Lease agreement dated 31.08.2018 Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) 14 4 Email sent by plaintiff dated 15.01.2020 Ex.PW1/4 1 5 Email dated 16.01.2020 Ex.PW1/5 1 6 Email dated 22.01.2020 Ex.PW1/6 1 7 Email dated 30.01.2020 Ex.PW1/7 1 8 Email dated 24.02.2020 Ex.PW1/8 1 9 Whats app chat between plaintiff and Ex.PW1/9 2 official of defendant 10 Email dated 22.06.2020 Ex.PW1/10 1 11 Email dated 22.06.2022 Ex.PW1/11 1 12 Bill of Delhi Jal Board dated Ex.PW1/12 (de- 2 20.07.2020 exhibited and marked as Mark PW1/12) 13 Electricity Bill of BSES dated Ex.PW1/13 (de- 2 30.07.2020 exhibited and marked as Mark PW1/13) 14 Screenshots of information available on Ex.PW1/14 1 internet 15 Screenshots of facebook profile of Ex.PW1/5 3 defendant 16 Legal notice dated 08.07.2020 Ex.PW1/16 12 17 Reply dated 13.08.2020 to legal notice Ex.PW1/17 7 18 Aadhar card of plaintiff Ex.PW1/18 1 19 Non-starter Report dated 28.08.2023 Ex.PW1/19 1 20 Certificate u/sec.65 Of Indian Evidence Ex.PW1/20 1 Act CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 6/20 7 21 Certified copy of order dated Ex.PW1/21 2 19.01.2023
8 To rebut the case of plaintiff and to prove its own case defendant examined Sh. S. K. Bajpai, its AR as DW1. He led examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and deposed in terms of the facts of the written statement and relied on following documents:-
Srl. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) pages No. 1 Board Resolution dated 05.09.2019 Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) 1 2 Request through e-mail for reduction in rent Ex.DW1 /2 (colly) 1 dated 04.02.2020 3 Document reflecting full and final settlement Ex.DW1/3 (colly) 4 of the employees working at Janakpuri (OSR) branch upto 21.03.2020 (objected to mode of proof) 4 Bank Statement reflecting the payment to Ex.DW1/ 4 2 the concerned employees from 01.06.2020 (objected to mode to 30.06.2020 of proof) 5 Copies of cheques with receiving towards Ex.DW1/5 (colly) 2 payment of full and final settlement for the (objected to mode concerned employee dated 09.05.2022 of proof) 6 Original voucher towards payment of full and Ex.DW1/6 2 final settlement for the concerned employee (objected to mode dated 09.05.2022 of proof) 7 Original copies of journal voucher entry with Ex.DW1/7 2 respect to the payment of full and final (objected to mode settlement for the concerned employees of proof) dated 31.03.2020 8 Certificate of CA of losses cumulative by Ex.DW1/8 2 defendant from November 2018 to March (objected to mode 2020 of proof) CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 7/20 8 9 E-mail communication dated 26.04.2020 Ex.DW1/9 2 requested rent waiver 10 Notice dated 12.09.2024 for production of Ex.DW1/10 3 document u/o 11 rule 5 CPC
9 After closure of evidence, final arguments were heard.
10 I have gone through the record, evidence, submissions forwarded by counsel for the plaintiff.
11 My issue wise finding is as under:-
ISSUES NO.1 Whether the defendant is within his right to not to pay rent during Covid period in view of clause 12.5 of the lease agreement dated 31.08.2018 and as per the allegations in the written statement in this regard? OPD.
12 The onus to prove this issue was on defendant. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for the defendant that Hon. High Court of Delhi, in its judgment Mehra Jewel Palace Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Miniso Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. RFA (OS) (COMM) 04/2022 DOD 22.09.2025, had termed the covid period as an "Act of God" and due to that reason all the contracts for that period are not enforceable.
On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that the parties are governed with lease agreement dated 31.08.2018 Ex.PW1/3 and there is no mention of "spread CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 8/20 9 of corona virus" or similar thing to be termed as "Act of God" and due to that reason, the Covid period could not be termed as "Act of God".
13 As far as the lease period is concerned, the relevant portion of the agreement dated 31.08.2018 is clause 12.5 which is as under:-
12.5 In case the said Demised Premises or any part thereof shall at any time during the Term or any extension thereof be destroyed or damaged by an act of God, riot and civil commotion, enemy action and such like damages not within the control of the LESSOR or the LESSEE so that the LESSEE is unable to gain access to the said Demised Premises or substantial portion of the said Demised Premises is rendered inhabitable or even otherwise, in any such event, the LESSEE shall not be required to pay any Lease Charge till such time the said Demised Premises is brought to its normal condition by the LESSOR. In the event the said Premises is not brought back to its normal condition by the LESSOR within ninety days from the date of such damage/destruction, the LESSEE, shall be entitled to terminate the lease.
No doubt there is no mention of spread of Corona Virus to be termed as "Act of God".
14 However in the judgment Mehra Jewel (supra), the relevant clause was as following:-
46. Clause 12 of the lease deed reads as under:
12. Force Majeure:
Neither party shall be liable to the other party for any delay or omission in the performance of any CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 9/20 10 obligation under this Agreement where the delay or omission is due to any Force Majeur condition, i.e. Acts of God, floor, earthquake, tempest, war, riots, embargoes etc. (Force Majeure). If Force Majeure prevents or delays the performance by a Party of any obligation under this Agreement, then the Party claiming Force Majeure shall promptly notify the other party thereof in writing. Except as expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, the date and time for the performance by any party or any obligation in this Agreement shall be postponed automatically to the extent, and for the period of time, that they party is prevented from doing so by an event of Force Majeure.
So, the clause of Force Majeure in Mehra Jewel judgment (supra) is quite similar to the Force Majeure clause of Ex.PW1/3 i.e. agreement between the parties.
15 Hon. DHC, in this regard had laid down in Mehra Jewel (supra) as under:-
48 We agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that Covid-19 Pandemic was an even that could not have been anticipated or controlled.
The onset was sudden and affected human life unlike any other event in recent memory. Therefore, we find that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the force majeure clause i.e. Clause 12 of the lease deed was rightly invoked.
49 Another submission of Mr. Uppal that the OM issued by the Government of India, whereby the force majeure clause as invoked in government contracts could not have been applied to contracts in which the government is not a party, is not agreeable with us for the reason that a principle of law that holds good for government contracts, also holds good for contracts between two private parties. No distinction can be drawn based on the type of parties CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 10/20 11 involved. In any event, it is a matter of fact that pandemic ushered in chaos in all facets of life and affected every citizen and business in the country and across the globe, including government and private entities.
So, according to the law laid down in this judgment, the spread of corona virus was termed as "Act of God". Similar view was taken by Hon. DHC in another judgment i.e. Isher Dass Sahani & Brothers Vs. Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt., CS (COMM) 274/2020 DOD 12.03.2024.
So, in these circumstances, in view of sec.32 and 56 of Indian Contract Act, parties were absolved from the obligations of their contract i.e. Ex.PW1/3, to claim or pay rent for the period 25.03.2020 to 08.06.2020. This issue is decided in these terms.
ISSUES NO. 2 to 7 Issue No.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent for the period 01.01.2020 to 15.08.2020? OPP.
Issue No.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest of Rs.18,52,500/- @ 18% per annum or at any other rate? OPP.
Issue No.4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.46,930/- of electricity bill from defendant. OPP.
Issue No.5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.1,17,043/- of Delhi Jal Board bill from defendant. OPP.
Issue No.6 CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 11/20 12 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rent of three months notice period amount to Rs.8,55,000/-? OPP.
Issue No.7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.25 lakhs? OPP.
16 The onus to prove these issues was on plaintiff. Plaintiff has sought the amount from the defendant in paragraph 17 of the plaint in following terms:-
S. Arrears Rupee
No.
A Arrears of rent for period 1 st February, 2020 to 15th August Rs.18,52,500/-
2020 @ Rs.2,85,000
B Arrears of interest amounting to calculated till 31.10.2020 Rs.2,50,087/-
C Arrears of electricity bill dated 11.06.2020 Rs.46,930/-
D Arrears of Delhi Jal Board bill dated 28.07.2020 Rs.1,17,043/-
E Rent payable during 3-months notice period after expiry Rs.8,55,000/-
of locking period i.e. September 2020 to November 2020 as per clause 9.1 of Lease Agreement dated 31.08.2018 F Damages Rs.25,00,000/-
Total Rs.56,21,560/-
As already discussed above, there is no need for payment of rent for the period 25.03.2020 to 08.06.2020 to the plaintiff.
17 As far as period 01.02.2020 to 24.03.2020 is concerned, the defendant had admitted in his cross-examination "it is correct that defendant had not paid rent for the period CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 12/20 13 01.02.2020 to 24.03.2020". Now this period 01.02.2020 to 24.03.2020, there was no restrictions of Covid period. Parties were governed by the agreement Ex.PW1/3. Even the defendant had admitted that he has not paid that rent. So plaintiff is able to prove that he has to recover the rent for the period 01.02.2020 to 24.03.2020. So, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of rent for this period and defendant is liable to pay the said amount.
18 Now as per the evidence and from the pleadings of the plaintiff itself, the defendant had sent the key of the property on 23.06.2020 in an envelope. So, the plaintiff got the possession of the suit property on 23.06.2020. It is argued by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that, the defendant could not cancel the agreement without giving notice in terms of Ex.PW1/3. It is submitted that there cannot be any unilateral termination of agreement without paying the amount mentioned in the agreement Ex.PW1/3. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for the defendant that the nature of the business of the defendant i.e. hair cutting salon is such that, even after the partial restrictions were over, there was no viable business and due to that reason, the property was surrendered to the plaintiff on 23.06.2020. It is further stated that due to the peculiar circumstances existing at that point of time, there was no need to CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 13/20 14 perform all the requirements as mentioned in Ex.PW1/3.
19 As far as these contentions are concerned, Hon. DHC in Isher Dass Sahani (supra) had encountered with similar type situation and dealt it. In paragraph 74 to 76 Hon. DHC has stated as under:-
74. The Covid Pandemic was a completely unprecedented situation and none was aware as to when the situation would return to normalcy in times plagued by this Pandemic.
The decisions were being taken by the Government on ad- hoc basis over a period of time depending upon the prevailing situation. This is evident from the fact that while first Lockdown was invoked in March, 2020 after which some normalcy was restored from May,2020 onwards, but it was being done in phases depending upon the impact of the COVID Pandemic. The COVID Pandemic came back with its full fury in the form of Delta variant resulting in huge loss of life from April, 2021 to May, 2021. Even thereafter, the Government treaded cautiously and from time to time the precautionary steps were taken and gradually the life was strived to be brought to normalcy which eventually happened from 28.02.2022. Looking at the entire period, it was a situation where uncertainty prevailed for over two years. The situation was perceived and assessed from time to time by the Government and for the livelihood of people, may have permitted limited opening of trade and commerce and the Restaurants but it was only till further orders, for one was not sure if and when the situation would return to normalcy. In this environment of uncertainty, even though partial opening of business was permitted by the Govt., it cannot be said that the defendant was wrong in estimating that such situation is likely to continue even after 30.05.2020. It has to be accepted that those were not the times of normalcy; as it is a known fact that all steps taken by the Govt. were on adhoc basis with no one being aware of what would happen next. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the Clause 11 was not applicable at the time of service of Notice of Termination on 02.06.2020, is not tenable.
CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 14/20 1575. The other objection of the plaintiff that the parties did not negotiate before the Termination Notice, is also without merit. COVID-19 Pandemic situation was hostile and self- evident. The defendant immediately on the advent of Covid, had raised his concerns immediately by writing an e-mail dated 19.03.2020 followed by e-mail dated 20.03.2020 and 04.05.2020 to the plaintiff and had been negotiating about downward revision of the rent. In fact, the plaintiff was also conscious of the prevailing situation and had indicated that it would consider slight concession in the rent.
76. Therefore, in the unparalleled situation where its magnitude shocked the world, it was well within the estimation of the parties that the situation is likely to continue for long, which indeed happened as well. There were discussions and negotiations held and it may not be appropriate to take a hyper-technical view that the Notice of Termination by the defendant could have been given only after 60 days of the Pandemic situation and after the negotiations. The parties had a clear indication that the Lockdown situation may continue for long and the negotiations commenced immediately on 19.03.2020 and continued till May, 2020. In spirit, all the requirements as contemplated in Clause 11, were satisfied.
Now as per the abovesaid portion of the said judgment, Hon. DHC has laid down that that covid period was unprecedented and due to that reason, the procedural technicalities need not to be performed verbatim as in contract. In the present case also, though no notice of termination is given, that appears to be a procedural irregularity since the defendant had very much intention to surrender the tenanted premises due to non-viability of business in covid period.
So, in these circumstances, it can be held that the contract stood terminated on 23.06.2020 when the plaintiff got CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 15/20 16 the keys of the property.
20 As far as parties are concerned and as far as the manner in which similar facts are dealt in judgment Mehra Jewel and Isherdass Sahani judgments (supra), the plaintiff is entitled for the rent for the period 09.06.2020 to 23.06.2020.
21 As far as rent for the period beyond 23.06.2020 to 15.08.2020 is concerned, the plaintiff is not entitled for any amount since as per Isherdass Sahani judgment (supra), due to unforeseeable circumstances of Covid, the relationship between parties ended on 23.06.2020.
22 As far as the rent of three months period after the expiry of lock in period i.e. September 2020 to November 2020 is concerned, plaintiff is not entitled for any amount since as per Isherdass Sahani judgment (supra), due to unforeseeable circumstances of Covid period, the plaintiff is not entitled as the agreement and thus relationship between parties ended on 23.06.2020.
23 Plaintiff has also sought damages for Rs.25 lakhs on account of the fact that defendant had vacated the premises before the lock in period and deprived the plaintiff of the rent/damages which he could not fetch as the property could not CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 16/20 17 be rented again for a considerable period. As far as evidence in this regard is concerned, he deposed "I had never thought of leasing the property to some other person, after the defendant vacated the same". Even as per the evidence of defendant, his son is doing business from the property since February 2021. So, this shows that plaintiff was never interested in further letting the property. So, the question of damages does not arise. Thus rejected.
24 Plaintiff has sought recovery of Rs.46,930/- as electricity charges. DW1 had admitted in his evidence "defendant has not made any payment qua Mark P1/12 and Mark PW1/13". Now Mark P1/12 is a bill from DJB and Mark PW1/13 is electricity bill of BSES. Now Mark P1/12 pertains for the period 20.03.2020 to 28.07.2020. The same is for Rs.1,168/- for that period. However, there is also some arrears mentioned therein. No bills for those arrears have been brought on record. So, there is no evidence on record regarding another amount mentioned in the said bill. So, this bill shall be considered for due charges of Rs.1,168/-. Admittedly, the defendant had not paid the same. So, he is liable to pay the same.
25 As far as electricity bill Mark PW1/13 is concerned, CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 17/20 18 the same is period i.e. 08.05.2020 to 07.06.2020. In the said period, the covid restrictions were there. As per this bill, last payment of Rs.23,280/- was received by BSES on 03.03.2020 (pre-covid period). In the pre-covid period, the bill was of Rs.23,280/-, when the business was going on. However, it is quite strange as to how there is a bill of Rs.46,930/- for one month when there was no business. No witness from BSES is produced who could have shown some light on this. So, in these circumstances, this document does not inspire the confidence of the court. So, in these circumstances, no payment can be made on the basis of this document.
26 As far as interest is concerned, admittedly the plaintiff had given the property on rent for business purposes. Defendant had not paid any rent for the period stated above and deprived the plaintiff of legitimate dues. In these circumstances, plaintiff is entitled for, interest, pendent-lite and future interest as claimed i.e. @18% per annum. The same is awarded accordingly.
So, in these circumstances, the claims sought by the plaintiff and awarded by the court are as following:-
S. Arrears Rupees Granted by
No. Court
A Arrears of rent for period 1 st February, Rs.18,52,500/- Rent for the
2020 to 15th August 2020 @ Rs.2,85,000 period
01.02.2020 to
CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 18/20
19
24.03.2020 =
Rs.5,03,500/-
B Arrears of interest amounting to calculated Rs.2,50,087/- Interest @18%
till 31.10.2020 per annum for
the period
01.02.2020 to
24.03.2020 =
Rs.13,160/-
C Arrears of electricity bill dated 11.06.2020 Rs.46,930/- Not Granted.
D Arrears of Delhi Jal Board bill dated Rs.1,17,043/- Rs.1,168/-
28.07.2020
E Rent payable during 3-months notice Rs.8,55,000/- Not Granted
period after expiry of locking period i.e. September 2020 to November 2020 as per clause 9.1 of Lease Agreement dated 31.08.2018 F Damages Rs.25,00,000/- Rejected Total Rs.56,21,560/- Rs.5,17,828/-.
These issues are decided in these terms.
RELIEF 27 In view of the aforesaid issue wise discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is decided and following reliefs follows:-
(i) The suit of the plaintiff is decree for recovery of Rs.5,17,828/-.
(ii) Pendent-lite and future interest @18% per annum is also awarded to the plaintiff.
(iii) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
28 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 19/20 2029 Copy of judgment be issued to all the parties through email or hard copy be provided physically. Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH PANDIT 30 File be consigned to Record Room. PANDIT Date:
2025.11.13 15:10:26 +0530 Announced in the open court (Rakesh Pandit) on 13.11.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-04/ SW/Dwarka/Delhi CS (Comm) No. 462/2023 Sudhir Gupta Vs. M/s Modi Marco Aldany Pvt. Page 20/20