Delhi District Court
Sheetal Handa And Anr // vs Amit Arora on 9 February, 2026
In the Court of Shri Ashutosh Kumar, District Judge (Commercial
Court)-01, Tis Hazari Courts, West District, Delhi
CS (Comm) No. 800/2024
CNR No.DLWT01-007960-2024
1. Sheetal Handa
W/o Geetam Handa
R/o 34/6-A, Third Floor, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
2. Aarti Handa
W/o Tarik Handa
R/o: 49/16, 2nd Floor, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 .......Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Amit Arora
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh Arora
R/o: WZ-288, Street No.11, Lajwanti Garden
New Delhi-110046
........Defendant
Date of Institution : 12-09-2024
Date of hearing of arguments : 02-02-2026
Date of decision : 09-02-2026
Plaintiff's counsel - Sh Malaya Kumar Chand
Defendant's Counsel - Sh Sanjay Kumar
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for eviction, mandatory and permanent injunction and mesne profits filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant.
1CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora
2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners of the property bearing DDA Shop no. 7 on the Ground Floor, Area measuring 14.19 Sq. Mts. Situated at DDA LSC Market, M-1 Bock, Vikaspuri New Delhi- 110018 (hereinafter referred to as the suit / tenanted premises.
3. It is further claimed by the plaintiffs that during November, 2020, the defendant had approached the husband of plaintiff no. 1 through one dealer Rajiv Yadav s/o P.R Yadav r/o House No. F-461, second Floor VikasPuri, New Delhi-110018, for taking the suit premisesCS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora on rent, pursuant to which the suit premises was let out to the defendant by the plaintiffs vide registered rent agreement dated 06-11-2020 (which was got drafted by the defendant) for a period of 33 months till 04-07-2023, duly signed by both the parties, vide which it was agreed that defendant shall pay monthly rent of Rs. 13,000/- with a clear stipulation that the said rent shall be increased @ 5% after a span of 11 month from commencement of the said rent agreement. Vide the said rent agreement, the defendant had agreed to vacate the suit premises on expiry of the said period of 33 months. It is further claimed by the plaintiffs that during the said tenancy period, the defendant was irregular in timely payment of rent despite plaintiffs' repeated effort, due to which there was an outstanding rent of Rs. 2,11,002/- till 04-07-2023 against the defendant, which was 2 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora required to be paid alongwith interest of Rs. 25,994/- @ 12% per annum till 15-07-2024 and thus total amount of Rs. 2,36,996/- was payable by the defendant. Plaintiffs have further claimed that the defendant was also required to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- per day to the plaintiffs as per clause 18 of the rent agreement as penalty in addition to the settled rent, from the expiry of the rent agreement and for period beyond the time of rent agreement i.e. from 05.07.2023 and therefore the plaintiffs were further entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,76,000/- qua the said penalty as on 15-07-2024 alongwith interest of Rs. 19,560/- @ 12% p.a., totaling to Rs. 3,95,560/- but the defendant had only paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 01-11-2023, leaving outstanding amount of Rs. 3,45,560/-. Plaintiffs have also claimed that the time was the essence of the contract/rent agreement and despite lapse of time and termination of lease, legal notice for vacation and repeated reminders, the defendant was trying to delay the issue on one pretext or another. Plaintiffs have also claimed an amount of Rs. 1 Lakhs on account of litigation expenses and mental agony suffered by them.
4. Plaintiffs have also claimed that the cause of action for filing the present suit had arisen on 04.07.2023, when let-out period of 33 months had expired and defendant refused to vacate the suit premises and also on 15.10.2023 when the plaintiffs had served him with the legal notice through their counsel for eviction of the suit premises and payment of arrears.
3CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora
5. By way of filing the present suit, the plaintiffs have prayed for following reliefs:
a. Pass a decree in favor of plaintiff of this purpose that possession of the above-mentioned property restored in favor of plaintiff.
b. Pass a decree of Rs. 7,32,556/- along with pendate-lite and future interest @ 12 % per annum, in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant and c. Pass/issue mandatory and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs to desist the defendant from creating 3rd party interest in the suit property.
6. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendant and appearance was duly made on his behalf. In the preliminary objections of written statement filed by the defendant, the defendant has claimed that the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed, inter alia, on the grounds that the suit is based on false frivolous and concocted facts, liable to be dismissed under order 7 rule 11 read with section 151 C.P.C. being filed without any cause of action and the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed true facts
7. On merits, while admitting the landlord tenant relationship between the parties in respect of suit property, the defendant has categorically stated that he always paid the rent through bank transfer to plaintiff no.2 Aarti Handa and cash dealings were made 4 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora with Geetam Handa, who is husband of plaintiff no.1 herein but no rent receipts were ever issued to him by the plaintiffs. While categorically denying the averments made in para 8 of the plaint, the defendant has claimed that he had given the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs on 04.07.2023 and further that the parties had settled the matter, pursuant to which it was decided that the defendant would pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as total settlement amount once and for all, which was paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs on 01.11.2023. It is claimed by the defendant that since he had already paid the rent by cash and bank transfer to the plaintiffs, handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs on 04.07.2023 and further paid the settlement amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiffs, there is no amount outstanding against him.
8. The plaintiff had filed replication to the written statement, denying the averments made in the written statement and further categorically denied therein that the possession of the suit property was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiffs on 04- 07-2023 and have further denied that any sort of settlement took place between the parties, pursuant to which, the defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also reiterated the contents of the plaint in their replication.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 20-11-2024:
5CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora
i) whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of suit premises being DDA shop no. 7 on the ground floor, area measuring 14.19 square meters, situated at DDA LSC Market, M-1 Block, New Delhi-110018, as shown in the site plan, from the defendant, as alleged? OPP
ii) whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rental to the tune of Rs. 2,11,002/- till 04.07.2023 along with interest @ 12% per annum accrued till 15.07.2024 of Rs. 25,994/-, totaling to Rs. 2,36,996/- from the defendant, as alleged? OPP
iii) whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mesne profit/damages to the tune of Rs. 3,76,000/-
along with interest of Rs. 19,560/- @ 12% per annum accrued from 05.07.2023 to 15.07.2024, totaling to Rs. 3,95,560/- minus Rs. 50,000/- paid by the defendant on 01.11.2023=Rs.3,45,560/-? OPP
iv) whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action & liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC? OPD
v) whether the plaintiff has suppressed the true facts and has not come to this Court with clean hands?
OPD
vi) Relief.
10. To prove its case, the plaintiff examined three witnesses i.e. plaintiff no. 1 Sheetal Handa as PW-1, her husband Geetam Handa as PW-2 and Rajiv Yadav as PW-3. PW-1 vide her affidavit of evidence Ex. PW-1/A, deposed on the lines of the plaint and exhibited the following documents:
i) Copy of rent agreement dated 06.11.202- Ex. P1
ii) Copy of Legal notice of demand alongwith postal receipts qua the same - Ex. P2 6 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora
iii) Original site plan - Ex. P3
11. PW-2 & PW-3 vide their affidavits of evidence Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-3/A respectively had relied upon the already exhibited aforesaid documents Ex.P-1 to Ex. P-3. All the three witnesses examined by the plaintiffs were cross-examined on behalf of the defendant and later discharged. P.E. was closed vide separate statement made by Ld Counsel for the plaintiffs.
12. On the other hand, defendant had examined himself as DW-1 and another witness namely Ashish Bhatia in defence evidence as DW-2. Both these witnesses tendered their affidavits of evidence Ex. DW-1/A and Ex. DW-2/A respectively in evidence but did not rely upon any documents.
13. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of the parties, perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties and have also perused the judicial file.
14. My issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE No. (i)
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of suit premises being DDA shop no. 7 on the ground floor, area measuring 14.19 square meters, situated at DDA LSC Market, M-1 Block, New Delhi-1100018, as shown in the site plan, from the defendant, as alleged? OPP
15. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiffs.
16. The defendant is written statement has not specifically denied that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property in 7 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora question, namely DDA Shop No. 7 on the Ground Floor, admeasuring 14.19 square meters, situated at DDA LSC Market, M-1 Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018 (hereinafter "suit premises") or that he had approached the husband of Plaintiff No. 1 (Geetam Handa) through a property dealer, Rajiv Yadav (son of P.R. Yadav, resident of House No. F-461, Second Floor, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018), in November 2020, expressing urgent need for the shop for commercial purposes or that pursuant to negotiations, the suit premises was let out to the defendant vide a registered rent agreement dated 06-11-2020 (marked as Ex. P-1), which was drafted by the defendant himself and duly executed by both parties. Defendant has merely claimed the said facts to be matter of record. Hence they are deemed to be admitted by the defendant. Furthermore, in admission/denial of documents of the plaintiffs, the defendant had admitted the said lease deed Ex. P-1. The tenancy was for a fixed period of 33 months, commencing from 06-11-2020 and expiring on 04-07-2023. The agreed initial monthly rent was Rs. 13,000, with an explicit stipulation for a 5% escalation after every span of 11 months from the commencement. The agreement further contained Clause 18, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 per day, in addition to the prevailing rent, for any unauthorized holdover beyond the expiry date. The defendant expressly agreed to vacate the premises peacefully upon the expiry of the 33-month term, without 8 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora requiring any notice. The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties qua the suit premises is expressly admitted by the defendant in his written statement. It is also admitted that the plaintiffs served a legal notice dated 15-10-2023 (Ex. P-2, along with postal receipts) upon the defendant, demanding immediate vacation of the suit premises, payment of outstanding rent arrears, and mesne profits/penalty. The defendant made a payment of Rs. 50,000 to the plaintiffs on 01-11-2023 via bank transfer, though the purpose and adjustment of this amount are contested.
17. The primary dispute centers on whether the defendant vacated and handed over peaceful, vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs on 04-07-2023, the date of tenancy expiry, as vehemently claimed by the defendant, or whether he continued in unauthorized occupation thereafter, as asserted by the plaintiffs. Linked to this is the contention regarding the existence of a mutual settlement: the defendant alleges that on or around 04-07-2023, accounts were settled with Geetam Handa (PW-2), resulting in an oral understanding that all dues would be cleared by a one-time payment of Rs. 50,000 which the defendant claims to have paid on 01-11-2023, extinguishing any further liability; the plaintiffs categorically deny any such settlement, treating the Rs. 50,000 as a partial adjustment against the penalty clause.
9CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora
18. Another key dispute pertains to the payment of rent during the tenancy period: the plaintiffs claim the defendant was irregular in making payments, leading to arrears of Rs. 2,11,002 as on 04- 07-2023, plus interest at 12% per annum amounting to Rs. 25,994 till 15-07-2024, totaling Rs. 2,36,996; the defendant maintains that all rent was duly paid through bank transfers to Aarti Handa and cash payments to Geetam Handa, with no arrears outstanding. The defendant denies any holdover, thus negating liability. Subsidiary disputes include the mode and proof of rent payments (defendant alleging cash without vouchers or acknowledgments), the non-refund of a security deposit of Rs. 26,000 (admitted by PW-2 in his cross examination, but not adjusted in plaint), the non-granting of a 4-month COVID-19 rental waiver (admitted by PW-2 as not provided, though not stipulated in the agreement), and whether all 4-5 cheques issued by the defendant were encashed (admitted by PW-2 as encashed but not covering full dues). The plaintiffs reference WhatsApp chats (not exhibited but mentioned in arguments) allegedly showing defendant's admissions of arrears and non-vacation; the defendant provides no counter-evidence. The defendant further alleges suppression of material facts by the plaintiffs, including the purported handover and settlement, leading to unclean hands, while the plaintiffs deny this, reiterating that time was the essence of the contract and the defendant delayed matters despite reminders. Additionally, the 10 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora plaintiffs claim Rs. 1,00,000 for litigation expenses and mental agony, which the defendant dismisses as frivolous. The credibility of witnesses is in question, particularly DW-2's testimony on the handover, given his admissions of not knowing the plaintiffs.
19. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is undisputed. The issue tenancy was governed by a registered rent agreement (Ex. P-1) dated 06-11-2020, which clearly stipulated that the lease was for a fixed and non-extendable period of 33 months. Hence, the said tenancy expired by efflux of time on 04-07-2023, and accordingly stood terminated under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In cases of fixed- term leases, the law is well settled that no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is required for determination of tenancy.
20. The case of the plaintiffs is that despite expiry of the lease period, the defendant failed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises, compelling the plaintiffs to serve a legal notice (Ex. P-2) dated 15-10-2023 upon the defendant and thereafter filing the present suit seeking possession.
21. PW-1, Ms. Sheetal Handa, in her affidavit of evidence (Ex. PW-1/A), reiterated the pleadings of the plaint and categorically deposed that the defendant did not vacate the premises upon 11 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora expiry of the tenancy and continues to remain in unauthorized occupation. During her cross-examination, she consistently denied the suggestions that possession had been handed over or that any settlement had been arrived at between the parties. Similarly, PW-2, also supported the testimony of PW-1 in his affidavit of evidence (Ex. PW-2/A) as well as in cross-examination. He categorically denied any handing over of possession by the defendant or any settlement between the parties. Though he admitted that certain negotiations were conducted with his brother Tarik Handa on behalf of Plaintiff No. 2, he firmly maintained that the defendant never vacated the suit premises. Once the suggestion put by Ld. Counsel for the defendant was denied by both PW-1 and PW-2, the onus to prove the claim of the defendant that possession of the suit premises was handed over to the plaintiffs on 04-07-2023, shifted to the defendant again.
22. In contrast, DW-1, in his affidavit of evidence (Ex. DW-1/A), reiterated the stand taken in the written statement and claimed that possession of the suit premises was handed over to the plaintiffs on 04-07-2023 in the presence of DW-2. However, the defendant failed to produce any documentary or independent evidence in support of this assertion. No handover memo, inventory list, photographs, acknowledgment, receipt of keys, or 12 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora written settlement was placed on record. The testimony of DW-1 thus remains a bald assertion, unsupported by any cogent proof.
23. DW-2, projected as an independent witness having a shop at M-8, M Block, opposite Kerala School, Vikaspuri, stated in his cross examination that the defendant handed over keys of the premises to one lady and one gents in his presence in and that the premises were vacant at that time. DW-2 also admitted that he did not know either of the plaintiffs, had never seen them, was unaware of the date of expiry of the lease, and initially gave contradictory statements regarding the year of the alleged handover, mentioning 2022 or 2020 before correcting himself to 2023. He was also unable to identify the alleged recipients of possession as the plaintiffs or their authorized representatives. These material inconsistencies and lack of personal knowledge render the testimony of DW-2 wholly unreliable and incapable of corroborating the defence version. The relevant portion of Cross- examination of DW-2 dated 13-12-2025 is reproduced as under:-
"My shop address in the year 2022-23 was M-8, M Block. opposite Kerala School, Vikas Puri, Delhi. I do not know both the plaintiffs. I have never seen them. It is wrong to suggest that keys of the subject shop were not handed over by the defendant to one lady and one gents in my presence in June/July, perhaps in the year 2022. Again said in the 13 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora year 2020. I am not aware whether registered lease deed between the parties qua the subject shop was going to expire. The said shop was vacant at the time of handing over of the possession. The keys thereof only were handed over by the defendant in presence to the landlords.
It is wrong to suggest that the defendant had not handed over the keys of the subject shop to one lady and one gents in the first week of June/July, 2023. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
24. Once the plaintiffs established expiry of tenancy and denial of handover, the burden of proving delivery of possession squarely shifted upon the defendant under Section 106 of the Bhartiya Saksha Adhiniyam, 2023. The defendant has miserably failed to discharge this burden.
25. Further, the legal notice (Ex. P-2) served by the plaintiffs upon the defendant subsequent to the alleged date of handover, remained unreplied. The defendant neither controverted the assertions made therein nor claimed that possession had already been delivered, hence adverse inference qua the handover of the possession by the defendant, is taken.
26. In view of the admitted expiry of the lease and absence of any renewal or consent thereafter, the defendant's continued 14 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora occupation was unlawful w.e.f. 05-07-2023 attracting Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act, and rendering him liable to eviction.
27. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have successfully established that tenancy expired with the efflux of time and the defendant is in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises from 05-07-2023. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of possession, and this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. (ii)
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rental to the tune of Rs. 2,11,002/- till 04.07.2023 along with interest @ 12% per annum accrued till 15.07.2024 of Rs. 25,994/-, totaling to Rs. 2,36,996/- from the defendant, as alleged? OPP
28. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs.
29. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the rent structure is governed by the rent agreement Ex. P-1, which clearly stipulates the following rent slabs:
30. For the first period of 11 months from 06.10.2020 to 05.09.2021, the monthly rent was ₹13,000/-, aggregating to ₹1,43,000/-.
15CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora
31. For the next 11 months from 06.09.2021 to 05.08.2022, the rent stood enhanced by 5% to ₹13,650/- per month, totaling ₹1,50,150/-.
32. For the final 11 months from 06.08.2022 to 05.07.2023, the rent was further increased by 5% to ₹14,332/- per month (as calculated in the plaint), aggregating to ₹1,57,652/-. Thus, the total rent payable for the entire tenancy period works out to ₹4,50,802/-.
33. The plaintiffs have fairly acknowledged the payments received from the defendant, which include: ₹2,32,000/- received through bank transfers credited to Plaintiff No. 2 up to 08.12.2022, and ₹7,800/- paid by the defendant towards miscellaneous expenses such as electricity and water charges.
34. After adjusting the aforesaid amounts, the outstanding arrears of rent as on 04.07.2023 comes to ₹2,11,002/-. The plaintiffs have further claimed simple interest @12% per annum on the said arrears from the respective due dates till 15.07.2024, amounting to ₹25,994/-, thereby raising a total claim of ₹2,36,996/-.
35. PW-2, in his deposition, has explained the above calculation in detail. He relied upon computerized rent data maintained in the ordinary course of business, which he also 16 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora admitted having shared with the defendant from time to time. During cross-examination, PW-2 specifically denied the suggestion that the said data showed only ₹1,96,000/- as outstanding.
36. PW-1, though unable to recall the particulars of individual cheques, categorically denied that the entire rent liability had been discharged by the defendant.
37. On the other hand, the defendant, examined as DW-1, asserted that the entire rent had been paid partly through bank transfers to one Aarti Handa and partly in cash to PW-2. However, the defendant failed to place on record any documentary evidence such as bank statements, transaction ledgers, or cash payment vouchers to substantiate the alleged payments. During his cross-examination, PW-2 admitted having encashed 4-5 cheques, but consistently maintained that the said payments did not satisfy the full rent liability and clarified that no receipts were issued, as this was not the practice between the parties.
38. Once the plaintiffs have established the rent payable and the outstanding amount, the burden to prove discharge of liability squarely shifts upon the defendant. In the absence of receipts, 17 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora acknowledgments, or bank records, the defendant's plea of full payment, resting solely on oral assertions, cannot be accepted.
39. It is also noted from the cross-examination of PW-2 that a sum of ₹26,000/- was received from the defendant as a security deposit, which admittedly has not been refunded. This amount is liable to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent. Accordingly, the net amount payable stands reduced by ₹26,000/-, resulting in a final adjusted entitlement of ₹2,10,996/-.
40. As regards the defendant's plea relating to a four-month COVID-19 rental waiver, although PW-2 admitted that no such waiver was granted, the defendant has failed to establish any contractual stipulation, mutual agreement, or applicable government directive entitling him to such waiver. Moreover, the plea has not been taken in the written statement with supporting particulars. At best, this contention may mitigate the equities but cannot result in complete or quantified deduction of the arrears claimed.
41. The rate of interest claimed by the plaintiffs at 12% per annum is found to be reasonable and justified in a commercial tenancy dispute.
42. Accordingly, Issue No. (ii) is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, holding them entitled to 18 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora recover a sum of ₹2,10,996/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date the said payment became due from the defendant towards the arrear of rental.
ISSUE NO. (iii) "iii) whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mesne profit/damages to the tune of Rs. 3,76,000/- along with interest of Rs. 19,560/- @ 12% per annum accrued from 05.07.2023 to 15.07.2024, totaling to Rs. 3,95,560/- minus Rs. 50,000/- paid by the defendant on 01.11.2023=Rs.3,45,560/-? OPP"
43. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs.
44. The Plaintiffs, in the legal notice dated 15.10.2023 (Ex. P-2), invoked Clause 18 of the registered rent agreement dated 06.11.2020 (Ex. P-1), stipulating that in case of holdover beyond the expiry of the fixed term on 04.07.2023, the defendant would be liable to pay penalty/occupation charges of Rs. 1,000/- per day in addition to the settled rent. The burden of proving such entitlement lies entirely on the Plaintiff. To succeed, the Plaintiffs were required to establish:
(i) that an actual loss or deprivation occurred beyond the ordinary measure of mesne profits;
(ii) that the claimed rate was reasonable and represented a genuine pre-estimate of damages under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; and 19 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora
(iii) that the quantum was supported by evidence of market conditions or loss suffered.
45. The Plaintiff has partially discharged this burden through the exhibited rent agreement (Ex. P-1), which contains an explicit contractual stipulation for Rs. 1,000/- per day as penalty for holdover. PW-1 and PW-2 deposed consistently that the defendant remained in unauthorized occupation, causing loss of rental income and harassment, though no independent expert evidence or comparative market rentals for similar small commercial shops (14.19 sq. mts.) in DDA LSC Market, Vikaspuri, was led to justify the exact rate. The deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 merely repeats the contents of the agreement and notice without additional supporting proof such as rental comparables or rental valuation reports of similar properties in the area. PW-3 (broker) confirmed arrears and default but did not address post-expiry market rate. Thus, while the contractual clause provides a basis, the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per day (equivalent to approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month), the same appears on the higher side for a small shop without direct market evidence, but it is not wholly arbitrary given the fixed-term nature and the defendant's admitted initial rent escalation pattern.
46. Given the overall circumstances and my findings on Issue No. (i) that the defendant is in illegal and unauthorized occupation since 05.07.2023 (post-expiry of the fixed term), the claim for Rs.
20CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora 1,000/- per day as per Clause 18 is sustainable as liquidated damages, being a pre-estimate in a commercial lease. However, in the absence of cogent independent evidence to justify enhancement beyond the last contractual rent, and considering the defendant's admissions in cross-examination (though limited), reliance is placed on the last agreed rent structure and judicial precedents for reasonable escalation.
47. In this context, the last escalated rent under the agreement was approximately Rs. 14,332/- per month for the final 11 months (as per plaintiffs' calculation in the plaint and PW-2's evidence). The defendant did not seriously dispute the rent agreement's terms in evidence, though he had not made full payment. In the absence of any contrary cogent evidence regarding the prevailing rent for similar premises, judicial notice can be taken of the escalation of rents in commercial areas of Delhi like Vikaspuri, as held in various precedents.
48. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as 'M/s. M.C. Aggarwal HUF Vs. M/s. Sahara India & Ors'., 183 (2011) Delhi Law Times 105 held that 15% increase every year should be payable by a tenant to the landlord for mesne profits post- determination of tenancy, even in the absence of direct evidence, by taking judicial notice of rent increases in urban areas. In the said case, the lease had expired, and mesne profits were awarded with 15% compounded annual increase over the contractual rate.
21CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora
49. Furthermore, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as 'Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs. Mohanjit Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs', 2019:DHC:3719, reaffirmed the position by upholding an annual enhancement of 10% in mesne profits, noting that 15% as in M.C. Aggarwal (supra) was not arbitrary or exorbitant, and judicial notice of rent escalation in metropolitan cities can be taken.
50. Also, in Bakshi Sachdev (D) by Lrs Vs. Concord (I), 1993 RLR 563, it was held that judicial notice of increase in rent in Delhi can be taken, and mesne profits or damages for use and occupation after termination of tenancy can be substantially more than the agreed rent.
51. Accordingly, in view of the above cited cases and my findings on Issue No. (i), wherein it was held that the defendant is in unauthorized and illegal possession of the suit property w.e.f. 05.07.2023, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is held entitled to mesne profits / damages @ Rs. 14,332/- per month (last contractual rate) w.e.f. 05.07.2023 along with increase @ 15% compounded every year thereafter till actual realization/vacation, along with interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount till realization (as claimed in the plaint for commercial dispute). The contractual penalty of Rs. 1,000/- per day is not awarded as standalone, but mesne profits are assessed at the escalated contractual rate for equity and 22 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora in line with precedents, as no market evidence justifies the higher penalty rate. The admitted payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 01.11.2023 is adjusted against the total mesne profits.
52. Calculation table for mesne profits till the date of argument on 02-02-2026 is as follows:
Year Period Monthly Mesne Profit Months Total (Rs.) (Rs.) 05.07.2023 to 04.07.2024 14,332 12 1,71,984 05.07.2024 to 04.07.2025 14,332 × 1.15 = 16,482 12 1,97,784 05.07.2025 to 02.02.2026 16,482 × 1.15 ≈ 18,954 7 1,32,678 (prorated ~7 months) Total Mesne Profits 5,02,446 (approx. till 02.02.2026)
53. Net mesne profits till above date would be approximately Rs. 5,02,4467/- plus interest @ 12% p.a. from respective due dates. For periods post-arguments, future mesne profits with 15% annual escalation till vacation, recoverable in execution under.
54. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the plainttiffs and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. (iv) "iv) whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action & liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC? OPD"
23CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora
55. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
56. Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejection of a plaint requires the plaint to disclose no cause of action on its face, without delving into merits or evidence. Here, the plaint pleads tenancy expiry on 04-07-2023, refusal to vacate despite time being essence, arrears accrual, and legal notice on 15-10-2023, constituting cause under Sections 108(q) and 111 TPA for possession, and under Contract Act for recovery. Supporting documents (Ex. P-1, P-2) bolster this. Also, In view of my findings to issue no (i) and (ii), the present issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. (v) "v) whether the plaintiff has suppressed the true facts and has not come to this Court with clean hands? OPD"
57. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
58. The doctrine of clean hands applies only where there is deliberate suppression of material facts going to the root of the claim. In the present case, the defendant has alleged suppression regarding the alleged handover on 04.07.2023, settlement, full payment of rent, non-refund of security deposit, and non-waiver of COVID-period rent.
24CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora
59. However, in view of the findings already recorded on Issue Nos. (i) and (ii), this Court has already held that the defendant failed to establish any lawful handover, settlement, or full discharge of rent liability.
60. The admissions of PW-2 regarding receipt of a security deposit of ₹26,000/- and non-grant of COVID rent waiver emerged during cross-examination and do not amount to suppression. The plaint is based on contractual dues under the agreement, and absence of adjustment therein does not constitute concealment of material facts.
61. There is no material to show that the plaintiffs approached the Court with unclean hands or intent to mislead. The plea is devoid of merit. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
RELIEF
62. In view of my findings to aforesaid issues, a decree of pos- session of suit premises being DDA shop no. 7 on the ground floor, area measuring 14.19 square meters, situated at DDA LSC Market, M-1 Block, New Delhi-110018, as shown in the site plan, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith a decree for a total amount of Rs. 7,13,442/- i.e. Rs. 2,10,996/- towares arrears of rent with interest @ 12% p.a. from 25 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora the date the said payment became due from the defendant till realization and Rs. 5,02,446/- towards mesne profits and damages alongwith interest @ 12 % p.a. to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff from 03-02-2026 till actual realization.
Digitally Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. signed by ASHUTOSH File be consigned to the record room. ASHUTOSH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.09 16:39:58 (Announced in the open (Ashutosh Kumar) +0530 Court) District Judge (Commercial Court)-1 West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 09-02-2026 26 CS (Comm.) No. 800/2024 Sheetal Handa Vs Amit Arora