Delhi District Court
Dipender Singhal vs Karampreet Singh Rana on 17 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-02)
SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 512/2024
DLSH010061562024
Sh. Dipender Singhal,
S/o Sh. Rangi Lal Singhal,
R/o H.No. 140-B, Second Floor, A-Block,
Vivek Vihar, Phase - II,
Delhi - 110095
.... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Karampreet Singh Sarna,
S/o Sh. Surjeet Singh Sarna,
R/o 7/186, Farsh Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110032
Also at:
Shop situated at Ground Floor,
Property No.7/182, Farsh Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110032 .... Defendant
Date of institution : 30.09.2024
Date of final arguments : 03.03.2025
Date of judgment : 17.04.2025
EX PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present is a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits
filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Briefly the case of plaintiff is that
plaintiff is the owner of suit property (i.e. shop situated at ground floor, measuring
about 9x28 of built up property bearing no.7/182, Farsh Bazaar, Shahdara,
CS (Comm) No. 512/2024 Sh. Dipender Singhal vs. Sh. Karampreet Singh Sarna Page No. 1 of 7
Delhi-110032) by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20.12.2017. Defendant had
approached the plaintiff to take the suit property on rent for his commercial
activities and the plaintiff agreed to let out the same and they entered into a lease
deed dated 24.08.2021 duly executed and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar -
IV, Delhi. It was agreed that the tenancy in respect of suit property was for a
duration of 22 months w.e.f. 01.09.2021 till 30.06.2023. After expiry of lease deed,
the defendant had represented the plaintiff that he is looking for some other
alternative property in market and sought more time to vacate the suit property and
considering good relationship with defendant, plaintiff allowed the defendant to
continue to occupy the suit property, however, plaintiff never renewed nor
extended the lease deed. Plaintiff has stated that the tenancy of defendant in
respect to suit property was month to month tenancy after the expiry of lease deed
dated 24.08.2021. Thereafter, plaintiff made several request to defendant to vacate
and handover the possession of suit property, however, the defendant avoided on
one pretext or other. The defendant had miserably failed and neglected to keep his
promise to hand over the vacant possession of suit property. Finding no alternative,
a legal notice was served upon the defendant calling upon the defendant to hand
over vacant possession of suit property within 15 days, however, defendant
neglected to comply the same. As the defendant is occupying the suit property
unauthorizedly, thus, defendant is liable to pay mesne profit or market rent of suit
property which is stated to be not below Rs.50,000/- per month. Plaintiff has
applied for pre institution mediation and notice of same was served upon the
defendant, however, defendant did not participate in the mediation proceedings,
accordingly, a non starter report dated 04.04.2024 was issued. The cause of action
arose when after serving of legal notice the defendant failed to vacate and
handover the possession of suit property and the cause of action is still subsisting
against the defendant. The monthly rent is stated to be Rs.38,000/-. Further, suit is
valued for Rs.4,56,000/- for the purpose of possession and Rs.200/- for the relief
of mesne profits and ad volurem court fees has been paid. Prayer has made for
recovery of possession, decree of mesne profit and an inquiry under Order XX
CS (Comm) No. 512/2024 Sh. Dipender Singhal vs. Sh. Karampreet Singh Sarna Page No. 2 of 7
Rule 12 CPC to ascertain mesne profit. Supporting affidavit, statement of truth, list
of documents and documents have been filed alongwith the plaint.
2. The defendant was served through process server on 19.10.2024 as
well as through speed and registered post on 21.10.2024. However, the defendant
neither put his appearance nor has filed any WS within the stipulated period of 30
days. Accordingly, the right of the defendant to file WS was closed and he was
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.12.2024.
3. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff Sh. Dipender Singhal has
examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is
Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
Aadhaar Card of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/1;
Site plan as Ex.PW1/2;
Original Lease deed dated 24.08.2021 as Ex.PW1/3 (colly);
Legal notice dated 27.12.2023 along with its postal receipts as Ex.PW1/4
(Colly);
Non Starter report dated 04.04.2024 as Ex.PW1/5;
Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 CPC as Ex.PW1/6.
4. The court has heard Sh. Akash Gupta, ld. counsel for the plaintiff and
have also gone through the record of the case.
5. It was submitted by ld. counsel for the plaintiff that the present
matter is a commercial suit and defendant has no prospect of succeeding. It is
further submitted that since the defendant has failed to appear and contest the
proceedings, the same be treated as admitted by the defendant and therefore, relief
as prayed in the suit, be granted and the suit be decreed.
CS (Comm) No. 512/2024 Sh. Dipender Singhal vs. Sh. Karampreet Singh Sarna Page No. 3 of 7
6. The court has thoroughly gone through the testimony of witness and
perused the material on record and have also duly considered the arguments
advanced by ld. counsel for plaintiff and gone through the law and precedents on
the point.
7. Perusal of Rent Agreement Ex.PW1/3 clearly reveals that the property
was let out to the defendant for commercial use by the plaintiff and thus, the tenanted
premises was actually used for commercial purposes. As tenanted premises was
actually used for commercial purpose, the dispute would be a commercial dispute
within the definition of Section 2 (i)(c)(vii) and the present court has jurisdiction to try
and decide the present suit. In rebuttal, the defendant has failed to contest the case or
put up any defence. Thus, the averments made in the plaint (which is supported with
the affidavit and statement of truth) remain uncontroverted, unrebutted and
unchallenged and can be presumed to be admitted as correct, as the defendant, who is
ex parte, failed to appear before the Court, failed to file his written statement along
with statement of truth, affidavit of admission and denial of documents of the plaintiff
and failed to file his own documents as well as any application for condonation of
delay within the stipulated period from the date of his service.
8. As the suit property is used for commercial purposes and the amount
claimed is more than Rs.3 lacs i.e. the specified value fixed for the Commercial
Courts, hence, this court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit.
Plaintiff has also duly complied with mandatory provision of Pre-Institution
Mediation and Conciliation as provided in Section 12 A of Commercial Courts
Act, as the non starter report dated 04.04.2024 Ex.PW1/9 mentions the reason as
"Notice issued to opposite party via speed post for 21.03.2024 and 04.04.2024
reported to be served on both the addresses. Hence, the Non Starter Report issued".
9. As far as limitation is concerned, the suit was instituted on 30.09.2024
claiming possession and the Rent Agreement executed between the parties is of
CS (Comm) No. 512/2024 Sh. Dipender Singhal vs. Sh. Karampreet Singh Sarna Page No. 4 of 7
dated 24.08.2021 Ex.PW1/3. The period of lease was upto 30.06.2023. Thus, it is
filed within the period of limitation. Moreover, as the tenanted premises falls within
the jurisdiction of present court, therefore, the present court has territorial jurisdiction
to try and decide the present suit.
10. The testimony of PW-1 remains uncontroverted, unrebutted and
unchallenged as the defendant, who is ex parte, failed to appear before the Court and
cross examine the witness. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1
who has reiterated, reasserted and reaffirmed all the facts, as elaborated in the plaint.
All the relevant documents and relevant averments have been proved in the evidence
and affidavit of Sh. Dipender Singhal examined as (PW-1).
11. As per clause 12 of Rent Agreement Ex.PW1/3, both the plaintiff and
defendant had the option to terminate the rent deed by giving one month's notice. The
relevant clause 12 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"12. That this lease deed is subject to one month written
notice by either party, that if the lessee wants to vacate the said
shop, before the above said fixed period of Twenty Two Months
then he shall serve one month advance written intimation to the
Lessor and if the Lessor wants to get vacated the said shop
before expiry of Twenty Two Months, then the Lessor shall
serve one month advance intimation to the Lessee"
12. The tenancy had terminated by efflux of time. The defendant had
taken the suit property on rent for his commercial activities and executed a registered
lease deed dated 24.08.2021 for a duration of 22 months w.e.f. 01.09.2021 till
30.06.2023 and remained in occupation of tenanted property even after the expiry of
lease period and termination of tenancy was also done by the plaintiff by way of legal
CS (Comm) No. 512/2024 Sh. Dipender Singhal vs. Sh. Karampreet Singh Sarna Page No. 5 of 7
notice dated 27.12.2023. At the outset for passing the eviction order, the only
requirements are :
i. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
ii. Tenancy having expired with efflux of time in case of rent agreement for a pe-
riod exceeding 11 months by a registered rent agreement or termination of tenancy
by a notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act in case of month to month tenancy.
iii. The case is not covered under Delhi Rent Control Act.
13. In Surender J Sood Vs R.R. Bhandari, RSA no. 106/2006, it was held
that once the landlord and tenant relationship is established and tenancy has expired
and the matter is not covered under DRC Act, 1995, decree of possession is the
natural consequence. In the present case, the defendant has neither disputed
relationship of landlord and tenant nor Rent Agreement Ex.PW1/3 as he failed to
appear and contest the proceedings. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to the decree of
possession with respect to suit property and defendant is directed to handover the
vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
14. Plaintiff has claimed mesne profits/damages @ Rs.1000/- per day w.e.f.
01.07.2023. Plaintiff has not claimed any amount on account of arrears of rent for the
period prior to filing of suit. As far as the period from 01.09.2021 to 30.06.2023 is
concerned, it seems that plaintiff has already received rent for the same. Plaintiff is
claiming damages/mesne profits @ Rs.1,000/- per day w.e.f. 01.07.2023 (after expiry
of period of tenancy) for unauthorized use and occupation of tenanted property etc.
till the plaintiffs are put into actual physical possession of tenanted property. Clause
16 of the Rent Agreement Ex.PW1/3 being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow:
"16. That if the lessee shall not vacate the said shop after the
expiry of 22 (Twenty Two) months i.e. 30.06.2023, then the
Lessee is bound to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day as
compensation to the Lessor alongwith the lease money for the
delayed period."
CS (Comm) No. 512/2024 Sh. Dipender Singhal vs. Sh. Karampreet Singh Sarna Page No. 6 of 7
15. Plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that he would have been able
to let out the property at higher rate of rent than agreed between the parties. It is stated
by ld. counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff has received the rent up till March, 2025 from
the defendant and thus, there are no arrears of rent to be paid by the defendant as per
statement of ld. counsel for plaintiff recorded at bar. There is nothing on record to
suggest that the suit premises would have fetched an amount higher than the rate of
rent on which the property has been let out to the defendant, therefore, it is directed
that plaintiff shall be entitled to rent/mesne profits @ Rs.38,000/- per month from the
defendant.
16. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussions, the suit of the plaintiff
is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as per the
following order:
ORDER
(a) Decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant is directed to handover the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit premises i.e. shop situated at ground floor, measuring about 9x28 of built up property bearing no.7/182, Farsh Bazaar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
(b) The suit of the plaintiff is further decreed for rent/damages/ mesne profit @ 38,000/- per month from 01.04.2025 till handing over the actual vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit premises of plaintiff by the defendant.
(c) It is further directed that the plaintiff is entitled to the cost of the suit to the extent of the Court Fees and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The decree for recovery of rent/damages/mesne profit shall become executable only after the payment of court fees on the aforesaid quantum of mesne profits. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
KIRAN BANSAL
by KIRAN
Pronounced in open court on BANSAL Date: 2025.04.17
16:25:21 +0530
17th day of April, 2024 (Kiran Bansal)
District Judge, Commercial Court-02
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts
Delhi/17.04.2025
CS (Comm) No. 512/2024 Sh. Dipender Singhal vs. Sh. Karampreet Singh Sarna Page No. 7 of 7