Delhi District Court
Abhishek Kumar vs M.G. Mobile India Pvt Ltd on 31 October, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI:
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT 03 - SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS (COMM) No. : 513/21
In the matter of :
MR. ABHISHEK KUMAR
D-60, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019 ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD
Registered Office at :
D-162
Kamla Nagar,
New Delhi-110007
Also at-
Shop No. 1, Ground Floor,
E-8, Main Road,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 ....Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 10.11.2021
Date when final arguments concluded : 04.09.2025 &
30.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent, use and occupation charges and recovery of mesne profits and damages.
CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 1/34ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD PLAINT
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the landlord and absolute owner of the property bearing Shop No. 1, Ground Floor, E-8, Main Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). The suit property was leased by the plaintiff's father Late Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar to the defendant company vide a registered Lease Agreement dated 02.03.2016. The lease was for a period of five years. From 01.03.2016 to 28.02.2019, the rate of rent was Rs. 95,000/- per month. From 01.03.2019 to 28.02.2021, the rate of rent was Rs. 1,09,250/- per month.
3. Plaintiff's father expired on 26.11.2016. Vide his registered Will dated 28.12.2016, the suit property was bequeathed to the plaintiff. Defendant was duly intimated. After the demise of plaintiff's father, defendant has been depositing the monthly lease amount from December 2016 till March 2020 in the bank account of plaintiff.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that from March 2016 to November 2019, the defendant paid monthly rent in terms of the lease deed. Upon request of the defendant and as a one time only special gesture of goodwill, the plaintiff reduced the monthly rent to Rs. 99,000/- + GST w.e.f 01.01.2020. The revised rent was payable in advance by the 7th day of each calendar month.
5. The defendant paid the revised rent for the months of January 2020 and February 2020. He failed to remit the monthly rent for the period from March 2020 to July 2020. On 31.08.2020, the defendant remitted one month's rent to the plaintiff which was adjusted towards the CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 2/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD rent of March 2020. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent for the months of April 2020 onwards despite issuance of monthly invoices for rent and regular communications regarding default in remittance.
6. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the tenancy has also come to an end by efflux of time on 28.02.2021. The defendant not only failed to remit monthly rent + GST for the period from April 2020 to February 2021 but also failed to vacate the suit property. With effect from 01.03.2021, status of the defendant in the suit property is that of a trespasser and an unauthorized occupant.
7. It is submitted that in mid April 2021, plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit property. Defendant was notified that the security deposit of Rs. 11,40,000/- would be adjusted against the outstanding monthly rent + GST for the period from April 2020 to February 2021. Legal notice dated 08.05.2021 was also issued by the plaintiff against the defendant.
8. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that in terms of Clause 27 of the said lease deed, the defendant is also liable to pay penalty on the outstanding monthly rental of Rs. 99,000/- for the period from April 2020 till February 2021. Defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per day for the unauthorized occupation of the suit property w.e.f. 01.03.2021 till date.
9. Despite receiving the legal notice dated 08.05.2021, the defendant has neither vacated the suit property nor paid the arrears of rent as demanded. After issuance of the said legal notice, defendant contacted the plaintiff and remitted an amount of Rs. 5,80,125/- towards the rent for the period from June 2020 to December 2020 unilaterally and CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 3/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD arbitrarily calculating this amount at the rate of Rs. 82,875/- per month. The plaintiff conveyed his objection to the defendant immediately.
10. It is averred that after deducting the amount of Rs. 5,80,125/- the amount outstanding against the defendant for the period from April 2020 to February 2021 is Rs. 10,23,405/-. The plaintiff has accordingly prayed as follows:
"(a) pass a decree for possession of the suit property being Shop No. 1, Ground Floor, E-8, Main Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19, admeasuring 550 sq. ft. along with fixtures and fittings therein in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and for ejectment of the Defendant from the suit property;
(b) pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for payment of arrears of rent from 01.04.2021 till 28.02.2021 amount to INR 9,14,010/- (after deduction of : (i) INR 1,09,395/- received in August 2020 and (ii) INR 5,08,125/- received on 22.06.2021);
(c) pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for mesne profits and damages for illegal use, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property by the Defendant at such rate as may be determined /fixed by this Hon'ble Court pursuant to inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 (1)(b)(ba) and (c) CPC 1908 with effect from 01.03.2021 till the date of institution of the suit and thereafter till the date of decree and thereafter till the date of the delivery of the possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff;
(d) direct the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff interest upon all the amounts due at the rate of 18% p.a. thereon;
(e) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice;CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 4/34
ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD
(f) costs."
11. It is noted that in para 17 of the plaint, the plaintiff valued the present suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee at 'Rs. 1,97,786,950/-'. On 06.07.2024 the application of the plaintiff u/s 151 CPC for correction of this typographical error was considered by my Ld. Predecessor. It was prayed by the plaintiff that the amount 'Rs. 1,97,786,950/-' in para 17 of the pliant be read as 'Rs. 1,98,66,950/-'. Vide Order dated 06.07.2024, the application was allowed.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
12. The contention of the defendant company is that it had no privity of contract with the plaintiff and plaintiff was neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit premises. It was the father of the plaintiff who executed the lease deed in question. It is further submitted that the GPA on the basis of which Sh. Davinder Kumar filed the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff is insufficiently stamped.
13. It is further submitted that in the year 2016, the lease deed with respect to Shop No. 2, Ground Floor, E-8, Main Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi executed between the defendant company and late Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar was terminated. The said shop was vacated. Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar had to refund the security amount of Rs. 11,40,000/- to the defendant upon vacation of Shop No. 2. However, he expressed his inability to refund the security amount to the defendant company. He, therefore, offered the suit shop i.e. Shop bearing no. 1, Ground Floor, E- 8, Main Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi to the defendant on monthly lease CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 5/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD rental in sum of Rs. 95,000/- per month. An understanding was also reached that the lease rental would be reduced in case the sales did not pick up. Accordingly, Lease Agreement dated 02.03.2016 was executed between Late Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar and Defendant No. 1. The lease was for a period of five years w.e.f. 01.03.2016. The initial monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 95,000/- less TDS plus Service Tax. The monthly rent was to be increased to Rs. 1,09,250/- w.e.f. 01.03.2019. The security amount of Rs. 11,40,000/- deposited by defendant company with Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar in respect of Shop No. 2 was to be shifted towards Shop No. 1 in terms of the the Lease Agreement dated 02.03.2016.
14. It is further submitted by the defendant that after the death of late Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar on 26.11.2016, it started paying monthly rent to the plaintiff who received the rent interest for and on behalf of legal heirs of late Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar. The defendant requested the plaintiff to reduce the rent as was assured by late Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar but the plaintiff kept delaying the matter. The plaintiff also requested the defendant to continue to pay the monthly rental as per the original Lease Deed dated 02.03.2016 till the lease rental was revised in writing. He also assured that the excess amount being paid by the defendant would be adjusted when a new lease deed with reduced rental was executed. The defendant, accordingly, continued to pay the lease rental from March 2016 to October 2019 as per the lease deed. The enhance lease rental at the rate of Rs. 1,09,250/- as per the lease deed was paid w.e.f. 01.03.2019. The rent was paid only on the basis of invoices raised by the plaintiff from time to time.
CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 6/34ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD
15. It is the case of the defendant that vide an email dated 03.12.2019, it requested the plaintiff to reduce the rent to Rs. 80,000/- plus GST and also assured him that the rent for the month of November 2019 would be paid in two days. It is submitted that the plaintiff proposed to revise the rent to Rs. 99,000/- plus GST w.e.f. 01.03.2020 with a condition of 5% increase after every 12 days. At request of the defendant, the plaintiff applied the revised and reduced rate of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2020.
16. The rent for the period of January 2020 and February 2020 was duly paid by defendant company. However, Covid-19 Pandemic struck in March 2020. National lockdown was imposed w.e.f. 25.03.2020 till 13.04.2020 which was extended from time to time. From 01.06.2020, certain restrictions were eased but in one way or the other, restrictions continued to be imposed till 30.11.2020. The fatal second wave of Covid- 19 pandemic struck the nation by the end of February 2021. Economy slowed down. Defendant also suffered heavy monetary loss. Some of its employees also illegally misappropriated its stock and inventory lying in the showroom.
17. It is submitted that in view of the above mentioned circumstances, defendant requested the plaintiff to keep the rent in abeyance during the lockdown period but there was no response. On 04.03.2021, plaintiff sent an email to the defendant stating that in addition to more than 25% rent reduction already provided to the defendant, he was willing to waive 5% rent increase for 2021 and all the penalties and interest accrued for late/non payment of rent. He also urged the defendant to remit all the outstanding dues immediately. It is CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 7/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD submitted that in light of this email where the plaintiff himself has waived all the penalties and interest, clause 27 of the Lease Deed shall have no application to the present circumstances.
18. It is also the case of the defendant that on 22.06.2021, it paid an amount of Rs. 5,80,125/- on 22.06.2021 to the plaintiff to show its bonafide intentions to resolve the matter. Even during the pendency of the present suit, the defendant paid an amount of Rs. 5,13,025/- on 06.11.2021, Rs. 1,62,000/- on 11.11.2021 and Rs. 1,62,000/- on 31.01.2022.
19. It is also the case of the defendant that the delay in payment of rent has occurred due to force majeure. It is submitted that as per clause 33 of the Lease Deed, no penalty is payable in such a case. Further, the defendant company has spent an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the interior and exterior of premises for turning it into a retail showroom.
REPLICATION
20. In his replication, the plaintiff has reiterated its stand in the plaint. It is submitted that defendant is estopped u/s 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from disputing the fact that the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit premises as it has admitted to paying rent to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the lease deed has expired on 28.02.2021, yet the defendants have not vacated the suit property and are in occupation without paying rent. The plaintiff has disputed spending of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the interiors of the shop. It is submitted that this issue CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 8/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD is also not relevant to the present controversy. Further, no notice of any force majeure was ever given to the plaintiff.
Deletion Of Defendants No. 2 and 321. Initially Ms. Meghna Modi and Sh. Ankit Massey, Directors of the Defendant Company had been impleaded by the plaintiff as Defendants no. 2 and 3. Vide Order dated 27.01.2023, both defendants no. 2 and 3 were deleted from the array of parties. Amended memo of parties reflecting M.G. Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. as the sole defendant was filed by the plaintiff.
ISSUES
22. Following issues were framed on 21.10.2024:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession of the suit property being shop no. 1, Ground Floor, E-8 main road, Kalkaji, New Delhi- 19 admeasuring 550 sq.ft.? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of payment of arrears of rent from 01.04.2021 till 28.02.2021 amounting to Rs.
9,14,010/-? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mesne profit and damages for illegal use, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property beyond 01.03.2021? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
5. Whether the present dispute is involve any commercial dispute or not ? OPD CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 9/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD
6. Whether the plaintiff is authorized to institute and pursued the present suit ? OPD
7. Relief."
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
23. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW1/A. He proved copy of the registered Will and Testament dated 26.11.2015 as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR). Copy of the registered Lease Deed dated 02.03.2016 is Ex.PW1/2. Copies of the Bank Statements of Bank Account Nos. 501-001-8721-0731 and 501-002-4794-3511 are Mark PW1/3 (Colly). Copies of emails exchanged between plaintiff and the defendant are Mark PW1/4 (Colly). Copy of the invoices is Mark PW1/5 (Colly). Office copy of Legal Notice dated 08.05.2021 is Ex.PW1/6. Mediation Non Starter Report is Ex.PW1/7.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
24. Defendant examined Sh. Sunil Kumar Bharadwaj, Director and Authorized Representative of defendant company as DW1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.DW1/A. He has relied upon copy of the Board Resolution of the defendant company as Mark DW1/1. During his cross-examination, DW1 has produced the document Mark-DW1/PX1 qua the figures of the turnover and sales of the showroom of last three years. DW1 further produced the document Mark-DW1/PX2 containing the details of the employees of their company. DW1 also produced the document Mark-DW1/PX3 i.e. the TDS certificate for the period April, 2022 to December, 2024.
CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 10/34ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD
25. Mark DW1/PX1 was produced by DW1 during the course of his cross-examination when the plaintiff challenged him to produce the figures of turnover and sales of the showroom of past three years. It mentions that for the year 2022 to 2023, total turnover of defendant at the suit shop was Rs. 3,33,66,902/-. For the year 2023-2024, it was Rs. 2,88,05,851/-. For the period from 2024 till February 2025, it was Rs. 2,38,54,507/-.
26. Mark DW1/PX2 is the details of the employees of the defendant at the suit shop with their designation and gross salary. The defendant has mentioned the names of four employees including the team leader (gross salary Rs. 30,199/-), cashier (gross salary Rs. 18,066/-), biker (gross salary Rs. 23,305/-) and an electrician (gross salary Rs. 24,529/-).
27. Mark DW1/PX3 (colly) are 11 Form 16A / TDS Certificates for the Assessment Year 2023-2024 (periods from 01.04.2022 to 30.06.2022, 01.07.2022 to 30.09.2022, 01.10.2022 to 31.12.2022, 01.01.2023 to 31.03.2023), Assessment Year 2024-2025 (periods from 01.04.2023 to 30.06.2023, 01.07.2023 to 30.09.2023, 01.10.2023 to 31.12.2023, 01.01.2024 to 31.03.2024, and Assessment Year 2025-2026 (periods from 01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024, 01.07.2024 to 30.09.2024, 01.10.2024 to 31.12.2024).
28. I have heard the detailed final arguments and have perused the record carefully including the written submissions of the parties and case laws.
CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 11/34ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD DISCUSSION
29. My issue wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE No. 6"6. Whether the plaintiff is authorized to institute and pursued the present suit ? OPD"
30. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant.
31. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant has raised two arguments under this issue. First, plaintiff is neither the the owner of the suit property nor the landlord and the Lease Agreement had been entered into with Late Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar, father of the plaintiff. Second, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff through his Power of Attorney holder Sh. Davinder Kumar but neither the original Power of Attorney was produced nor was it proved in evidence. I shall deal with both these points one by one.
Entitlement of plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendant.
32. In his written statement, the defendant has admitted that after the death of initial landlord and owner of the suit shop Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar, rent was deposited by it in the bank account of the plaintiff. Its contention is that the plaintiff had accepted the rent on behalf of all the LRs of late Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar. The defendant, however, could not produce any evidence on record to show that it objected to the plaintiff realizing rents from it as its landlord in respect of the suit shop or that the rent was being accepted by the plaintiff on behalf of all the LRs.
33. On the other hand, the plaintiff has relied upon the Registered Will dated 26.11.2015 (registered on 27.11.2015) of Sh.
CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 12/34ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD Shyam Lal Kumar is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR). Vide this Will, the ground floor having two showrooms 10' X 60' and 15'' X60'', both having an area of 1500 sq. ft., of property no. E-8, measuring 273 sq. yards, Kalkaji, New Delhi devolved upon the plaintiff (son). Other recitals of the Will are of no consequence to the present suit. There is nothing to show that this Registered Will has been disputed by the other LRs of Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar, namely, Sh. Akshay Kumar (son) and Smt. Jasjeet Kaur (wife). During his cross-examination of PW1, the defendant has put several questions to PW1/Plaintiff regarding the probate of this Will. To establish the landlord-tenant relationship between plaintiff and the defendant in a case where admittedly entire rent was being deposited in the bank account of the plaintiff, the issue of probate of the said Will is irrelevant. There is also nothing to show that defendant itself ever raised any doubt as to who the landlord of the suit premises was after the death of Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar. Nevertheless, PW1 responded to the query of Ld. counsel for defendant by saying that as far as he could remember, probate had been granted. He also pointed out that photocopy of the Mutation Letter dated 09.03.2017 issued by SDMC in favour of plaintiff and printouts of property tax receipts showing the plaintiff as owner were part of the record.
34. Photocopy of one property tax receipt dated 02.06.2018 in which name of the owner of the ground floor and first floor of property no. E-8 is mentioned as Sh. Abhishek Kumar S/o Late Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar is on record. This document has not been exhibited or marked in evidence by the plaintiff. Photocopy of Mutation Letter dated 09.03.2017 issued by SDMC in respect of the Ground Floor (having two showrooms CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 13/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD 10' X 60' and 15' X 60' total area 1500 sq. ft. ) and entire First Floor of Property No. E-8, Kalkaji, New Delhi is also on record. As per this letter, the above mentioned property was mutated in favour of the plaintiff by SDMC. It is not disputed that suit shop falls in this part of the property no. E-8. This document also was not exhibited or marked during evidence. During the cross-examination, the defendant challenged the plaintiff/PW1 to produce the originals of the above mentioned documents on the next date of hearing. The defendant, however, concluded the cross-examination of PW1 on the same day and PW1 did not get the opportunity to produce the originals of the above mentioned two documents. Concluding the cross-examination of PW1 by defendant on the same day after challenging him to produce the originals of these documents without giving opportunity to PW1 to produce the requisite documents amounts to the admission of genuineness of these documents on part of the defendant.
35. Even though the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is not applicable to the present case, I shall refer to it to contemplate on the definition of 'landlord'.
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(e) "landlord" means a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant;"
36. It is not disputed that defendant has been depositing the rent in the bank account of the plaintiff. Even during the life time of Sh.
CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 14/34ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD Shyam Lal Kumar, vide clause 38 of the Lease Agreement, plaintiff had been authorized to collect and deal with the lessee as per the lease deed.
37. Now I shall refer to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which provides as follows:
"116. Estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in possession. -- No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession there of shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given."
38. Section 122 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides as follows:
"122. No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy or any time thereafter, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given."
39. During the cross-examination of PW1, defendant put the following question to him:
"Q28. When did you inform the Defendant about the death of your father?
Ans. I do not remember the exact date although I may be able to tell the exact date the after perusing the court record.
At the request of the witness, the court record is made available to the witness. And after perusing CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 15/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD the court record the witness further stated that it was between the date of my father's demise and the first (December, 2016) payment of rent into my bank account from the defendant."
40. The defendant has not disputed that it had deposited the rent of December 2016 in the bank account of the plaintiff and continued to so deposit the rent thereafter. The defendant, thus, had the knowledge of the death of Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar well in time and it never questioned the authority of the plaintiff to collect rent. The plaintiff has established that he is the landlord of the suit premises and defendant accepted him as one.
41. By virtue of the Registered Will (Ex.PW1/1) and mutation document as already discussed above as also the fact that the defendant continued to deposit the rent in the bank account of the plaintiff even after the demise of Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar, plaintiff has proved that he has stepped into the shoes of Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar. The defendant has never disputed this fact prior to filing of the present suit. Now it is estopped from disputing the title of the plaintiff to the suit property.
42. Even if it is presumed that plaintiff is one of the three co- owners, the present suit still would be maintainable. In Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai & Ors. AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2572, it has been held as follows:
"It is well settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath and Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 184, Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathan and Ors.- (1977) 2 SCC 814 and Pal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh (dead) by Lrs. and Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 444 that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of tenant and it is no defence open to tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 16/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD ground that other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming subject matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every co- owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object. In Shri Ram Pasricha's case (supra) reliance was placed by the tenant on the English rule that if two or more landlords institute a suit for possession on the ground that a dwelling house is required for occupation of one of them as a residence the suit would fail; the requirement must be of all the landlords. The Court noted that the English rule was not followed by the High Courts of Calcutta and Gujarat which High Courts have respectfully dissented from the rule of English law. This Court held that a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff though he was not the absolute and full owner of the premises because he required the premises for his own use and also satisfied the requirement of being "if he is the owner", the expression as employed by Section 13(1)(f) of W.B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956."
43. I shall also refer to undisputed email dated 03.12.2019 sent by defendant to the plaintiff. Vide this email, the defendant requested the plaintiff for reduction in rent. In fact, all the emails show that all the rent related issues were discussed by the defendant with the plaintiff. No hesitation on part of the defendant regarding status of the plaintiff as its landlord is manifest on record. The defendant has failed to show any document which would show that after the death of Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar, there was any confusion related to who the new landlord was or CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 17/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD that all the three LRs of late Sh. Shyam Lal Kumar ever claimed to be the co-owners of the suit property.
44. The plaintiff is thus, entitled to recover outstanding rent and mesne profit/damages as also the possession of the suit shop from the defendant.
Plaint filed through General Power of Attorney Holder
45. Contention of the defendant is that original GPA dated 28.12.2016 in favour of Sh. Davinder Kumar who filed and signed the plaint was never produced and is insufficiently stamped. It is submitted that this document cannot be read in evidence for these reasons.
46. It is not a disputed fact that the present plaint has been filed through Sh. Davinder Kumar, Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff as the plaintiff is resident of Canada. The photocopy of the General Power of Attorney dated 28.12.2016 executed by the plaintiff in favour of Sh. Davinder Kumar is on record but has not been exhibited or marked. The plaintiff, however, himself entered the witness box as PW1 to prove his present suit. In para 12 of his affidavit in evidence (Ex.PW1/A), the plaintiff has deposed as follows:
"12. I state that as I am a citizen and resident of Canada, I had authorized my paternal uncle, Shri Davinder Kumar, to sign and file the above suit on my behalf vide a General Power of Attorney dtd. 28.12.2016. I further state that I ratify the institution of the suit and all further actions taken by my paternal uncle (Sh. Davinder Kumar) on my behalf."CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 18/34
ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD
47. The plaintiff has, thus, himself ratified in his affidavit in evidence that the present suit had been instituted by Sh. Davinder Kumar, his paternal uncle, on his behalf. In respect of this testimony of PW1, he has been cross-examined as follows:
"Q10. Is it correct that the Plaint is not signed by you?
Ans. After perusing the court file the witness answered that it is correct. Vol. It is signed by my power of attorney.
Q11. Is it correct that Mr. Davinder Kumar was not authorized to sign, verify and file the present suit?
Ans. It is incorrect."
There is, thus, no substantial cross-examination to the above reproduced assertion of PW1. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as relied upon Judgment dated 15.01.2009 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) 1168/2005 titled as Microsoft Corporation Vs. Mr. G.V. Rao & Anr wherein it has been held that it is now the settled legal position that the institution of a suit even if unauthorized on the date of institution can be subsequently ratified. Since in the present case, plaintiff /PW1 has himself has entered into the witness box and has ratified filing of the present plaint by Sh. Davinder Kumar on his behalf, the contention of the defendant that it could not be proved that Sh. Davinder Kumar was authorized to file the present suit is without any merit.
48. In view of above discussion, the issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 5"5. Whether the present dispute is involve any commercial dispute or not ? OPD"CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 19/34
ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD
49. The onus to prove this issue was on defendant.
50. It is an undisputed fact that the suit property i.e. Shop No. 1, Ground Floor, E-8, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 measuring 550 sq. ft. is a commercial property. It is specifically mentioned in para 1 of the plaint that the suit property was originally residential and was subsequently converted to commercial. The defendant ran its retail business from the suit shop. In its WS, the defendant has not denied the averment of the plaintiff that the suit property is a commercial property. Section 2 (1)(c)
(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. The present suit, thus, falls within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
51. The issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 1.
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession of the suit property being shop no. 1, Ground Floor, E-8 main road, Kalkaji, New Delhi- 19 admeasuring 550 sq. ft.? OPP"
52. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
53. As has been discussed under Issue no. 6, the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties has been established by the plaintiff.
54. Clause 17 of the Lease Agreement (Ex.PW1/2) provides as follows:
"17. The LESSEE can terminate this lease deed by giving two month prior notice. However, the CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 20/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD LESSOR cannot, terminate this lease deed except for non-payment of rent for two consecutive months and any nuisance not permitted by the law and force majeure."
55. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to terminate the lease deed by giving two months prior notice in the event of non-payment of rent for two consecutive months. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent from April 2020 onwards. Case of the defendant is that on account of Covid-19 pandemic, he suffered huge business loss. It is his defence that the delay in payment of rent occurred due to force majeure. As per clause 26, if due to any accident, fire or Act of God or force majeure, the demised premises is rendered unusable, the Lessee shall have the prerogative to vacate the said demised premises without giving two months notice as contemplated in the lease deed. Assuming that the suit shop was unusable on account of national lockdown and restrictions imposed by the Govt. of India during Covid-19 pandemic, the defendant had the option to vacate the demised premises without giving two months notice. The defendant clearly did not exercise this option to vacate the premises.
56. On 22.06.2021, defendant paid an amount of Rs. 5,80,125/-. Plaintiff has not disputed this assertion. During the pendency of the present suit, the defendant paid an amount of Rs. 5,13,025/- on 06.11.2021, Rs. 1,62,000/- on 11.11.2021 and Rs. 1,62,000/- on 31.01.2022. These payments are also not disputed. The defendant has not explained though as to for what period of outstanding rent have these payments been made and at what rate. Nevertheless, the loss suffered by CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 21/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD the businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic period specially in the years 2020 and 2021 cannot be ignored.
57. Even if clause 17 of the Lease Agreement is ignored, the Lease Agreement has already expired by efflux of time on 28.02.2021. Clause 27 of the Lease Agreement provides as follows:
"27. ...If the LESSEE fail to deliver the vacant possession of the said premises on the expiry of this Lease Deed or its earlier termination in that case, the LESSEE shall pay penalty to the LESSORS @ Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per day over and above the rent until the time of handing over the physical vacant possession of the premises to the LESSORS.
However, this shall not be deemed an extension of lease, but the LESSEE shall be deemed as unauthorized occupant during such period."
58. Vide Legal Notice dated 08.05.2021 (Ex.PW1/6), the plaintiff not only demanded outstanding rent and damages from the defendant but also called upon it to vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of the leased property to the plaintiff within the period of 20 days from the date of issuance of the notice. Since the Lease Agreement had already expired by efflux of time, a two months notice for vacation of the suit property was not needed. Despite issuance of notice dated 08.05.2021, the defendant neither cleared the outstanding rent amount nor handed over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of the suit shop from the defendant.
59. At this stage, I shall also consider the objection of the defendant that the affidavit in evidence (Ex.PW1/A) of PW1 cannot be CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 22/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD read as it has not been attested in India. This affidavit has been apostilled in Canada.
60. I shall refer to the Office Memorandum bearing no. Q/OI/433/2/2020 dated November 18, 2020 of Ministry of External Affairs (CPV Division) which mentions as follows:
"The Hague Apostille Convention, 1961, abolishes the requirement of legalization of foreign documents for use in any member country, once an Aprostille certificate (including e- Apostille) has been issued by a competent authority of the country where the document originates.
2. It has been brought to the notice of this Ministry that some institutes/organizations/establishments in India demand an apostilled document of a member country to be further attested by the Indian Mission/Post in that country. It is clarified that no further attestation or legalization of an apostilled document should be required in India as India is a member of the Hague Apostille Convention. An apostilled document should, therefore, be treated as legalized document in India by all concerned, in accordance with the international obligation under the Hague Apostille Convention."
61. India and Canada are members of the Hague Apostille Convention 1961. As per the website of Consulate General of India, Toronto, Canada ( https://www.cgitoronto.gov.in/page/attestation- apostille/ ), is a member of the Convention since 11.01.2024. The affidavit in evidence of PW1 has been apostilled at Toronto on 04.11.2024. Therefore, further attestation by Indian Consulate is not required for a document that is already apostilled by any of recognized Canadian authorities.
CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 23/34ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD
62. In view of above discussion, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 2"2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery of payment of arrears of rent from 01.04.2021 till 28.02.2021 amounting to Rs. 9,14,010/-? OPP"
63. The onus to prove this issue was on plaintiff. In the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that the defendant is in arrears of rent from April 2021 till 28.02.2021 when the lease deed expired by efflux of time. The period in the above mentioned issue shall, therefore, be read as 01.04.2020 till 28.02.2021.
64. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had paid the rent till February 2020. On 31.08.2025, the defendant remitted one month's rent in sum of Rs. 1,09,395/- which was adjusted towards the month of March 2020. Now the dispute pertains to rent for the month of April 2020 and onwards. The case of the defendant is that the delay in payment of rent occurred on account of force majeure i.e. outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic.
65. As per clause 26 of the lease deed, if due to any accident, fire or Act of God or force majeure, the demise premises is rendered unusable, the Lessee shall have the prerogative to vacate the said demise premises without giving two months notice as contemplated in the lease deed. As already discussed, assuming that the suit shop was unusable on account of national lockdown and restrictions imposed by the Govt. of India during Covid-19 pandemic, the defendant had the option to vacate CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 24/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD the demise premises without giving two months notice. The defendant did not exercise this option to vacate the premises.
66. Now I shall consider relevant clauses of the lease deed and also the calculations of the plaintiff. Ex.PW1/2 Lease Agreement shows that this lease was for a period of 5 years. The rate of rent was Rs. 95,000/- less TDS plus service tax per month. The monthly rental was to increase 15 % after three years. Thus, from 01.03.2016 to 28.02.2019, the lease rent was Rs. 95,000/- per month. For the period from 01.03.2019 to 28.02.2021, the lease rent was in sum of Rs. 1,09,250/- per month. It also talks about interest free security deposit in sum of Rs. 11,40,000/- paid by defendant to the lessor. It was to be refunded at the time of expiry of this lease deed after settling all sorts of arrears, if left unpaid by the Lessee towards the monthly rent, electricity bill etc. and when the Lessee hands over the vacant possession to the Lessor. As per clause 6, there was a lock in period of 36 months during which Lessee (defendant) cannot vacate the suit premises.
67. Clause 27 of the lease deed provides the manner of vacating of suit property by Lessee after expiry of the lock in period, circumstances of imposing penalty on the security amount in form of interest at the rate of 18% per annum or in case of early termination of lease deed by Lessee or his failure to deliver vacant possession on the expiry of the lease deed. In such cases, Lessee shall pay penalty at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per day over and above the rent to the Lessors till the physical vacant possession of the premises is handed over to the Lessors.
68. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has referred to the Legal Notice dated 08.05.2021 (Ex.PW1/6) sent by the plaintiff to the defendant vide CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 25/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD email along with calculations in form of three Schedules. Schedule-1 reflects the amount outstanding for the period from April 2020 till May 2021. An amount of Rs. 1,09,395/- per month for the above said period has been shown as outstanding amounts. The total outstanding amount is Rs. 15,31,530/-. Schedule-2 reflects amount due in terms of clause 33 of the Lease Agreement for the period from April 2020 till December 2020. This amount has been calculated using the formula 'no. of days of delay X Rs. 10,000/- per day'. The total outstanding penalty amount for the delay caused has been shown as Rs. 1,53,20,000/-. This Schedule also shows that the plaintiff has claimed interest w.e.f. 07.03.2021 @ 12% per annum on the outstanding rent for the month of January 2021. Plaintiff has also claimed interest w.e.f. 07.04.2021 @ 12% per annum on the outstanding rent for the month of February 2021. Schedule-3 is a calculation for the amount due against the defendant for the months of March 2021, April 2021 and May 2021. This amount has been calculated in terms of clause 27 of the lease deed using the formula 'monthly rent + GST + (no. of days of delay X Rs. 10,000/- per day)'. An amount of Rs. 6,90,000/- has been shown outstanding in this Schedule. I have considered the calculations of the plaintiff.
69. One of the contentions of the defendant in his written statement against the claim of recovery of rent and mesne profits is that it has spent Rs. 15,00,000/- on the interiors of the shop. In this regard, I would refer to clause 14 of Ex.PW1/2 which mentions that the Lessee will have to restore the demised premises in its original condition at the time of termination of lease deed except for normal wear and tear at its own cost and resources. The defendant, therefore, cannot take advantage CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 26/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD of the plea that it has spent Rs. 15,00,000/- upon the interiors of the suit shop. As per clause 14, he is required to handover the suit premises to the landlord in its original condition.
70. I shall also refer to the issue of security deposit at this stage. In para 7 of his plaint, the plaintiff has averred that the defendant was duly notified that the security deposit of Rs. 11,40,000/- is liable to be adjusted towards the outstanding monthly rent plus GST for the period from April 2020 till February 2021. There is no denial of this assertion in the corresponding paragraphs of the WS. Later in the WS, however, the defendant has averred that this security amount should be refunded to the defendant. I shall again refer to Lease Agreement (Ex.PW1/2) which provides as follows under the title Main Terms:
"The interest free security deposit has been paid by Lessee to the LESSOR at the time of Signing Agreement. The LESSOR shall refund the security deposit at the time of expiring of this Lease Deed after settled all sort of arrears, if left unpaid by the Lessee towards the monthly rent, electricity bill etc. and the Lessee said handover the vacant passion to the LESSOR and LESSOR shall refund said security deposit after taken back the above said position."
71. Even though the above said main term suffers from various spelling/typographical errors, it is clear that any kind of arrears towards monthly rent, electricity bill etc. are liable to be deducted from the security deposit. The amount of Rs. 11,40,000/- is, therefore, liable to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit.
72. Mark PW1/4 (colly) are various emails exchanged between the parties. Email dated 03.12.2019 at 7:46 AM and emails dated 09.12.2019, 10.12.2019 at 5:10 AM and 04.03.2021 are undisputed CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 27/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD emails. Vide email dated 03.12.2019, defendant gave assurance to the plaintiff regarding payment of rent for the month of November 2019 within 2 days and also requested the plaintiff to settle the rent upto Rs. 80,000/- plus GST. Vide email dated 09.12.2019, the plaintiff revised the rent and reduced it to Rs. 99,000/- plus GST w.e.f. 01.03.2020 with a 5% increase after every 12 months for the remainder of the lease term. Vide email dated 10.12.2019, the defendant accepted this offer and requested to make it effective from 01.01.2020. Vide email dated 04.03.2021, plaintiff issued rent invoice for the month of February 2021 and rent overdue notice. The plaintiff also expressed his willingness to waive 5% rent increase for 2021 and all the penalties and interest accrued on account of late or non payment of rent since April 2020. The above sequence of emails shows that w.e.f. 01.01.2020, the rate of rent was Rs.99,000/- plus GST per month. The agreed annual raise of the monthly rental at the rate of 5% was also waived for the year 2021. Thus, from 01.01.2020 till 31.12.2020 and for the year, the rate of rent remained Rs. 99,000/- plus GST per month. All the penalties and interest on account of late or non payment of rent since April 2020 till the date of email were also waived. Since the lease deed was to expire on 28.02.2021 and it had not been extended, I shall construe 'year 2021' as the period till expiry of lease deed in the year 2021 for the purpose of calculating outstanding rent.
73. Thus, for the period from 01.04.2020 to 28.02.2021 the rate of rent would be calculated @ Rs. 99,000/- plus GST per month. The Schedules annexed with the Legal Notice show that this amount comes to CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 28/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD Rs. 1,09,395/- per month which is inclusive of GST and has been calculated after deduction of TDS.
74. The amount payable towards outstanding rent for the period from 01.04.2020 to 28.02.2021 would come to Rs.12,03,345/- (Rs. 1,09,395/- X 11). Admittedly, defendant paid an amount of Rs. 5,80,125/- to the plaintiff on 22.06.2021 prior to institution of the present suit. During the course of arguments, plaintiff sought to deduct this amount from the principal rent amount. Thus, plaintiff is now entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 6,23,220/- (12,03,345 - 5,80,125) towards outstanding rent from the defendant.
75. To this extent, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 3"3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mesne profit and damages for illegal use, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property beyond 01.03.2021? OPP"
76. Onus to prove this issue was on plaintiff.
77. The defendant continued to remain in occupation of the suit premises even after expiry of Lease Agreement (Ex.PW1/2) on 28.02.2021.
78. Clause 27 of the lease deed provides the manner of vacation of suit property by Lessee after expiry of the lock-in period and the circumstances of imposing penalty on the security amount in form of interest at the rate of 18% per annum or in case of early termination of lease deed by Lessee or his failure to deliver vacant possession on the CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 29/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD expiry of the lease deed. As per this clause, in the event of failure of handing over the vacant possession of the suit property to the Lessor on expiry of the lease deed, Lessee shall pay penalty at the rate of 10,000/- per day over and above the rent to the Lessors till the physical vacant possession of the premises is handed over to the Lessors. The Court is, however, convinced that this stipulation of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- per day over and above the rent is punitive in nature whereas it is the compensatory damages that must be granted to the plaintiff.
79. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, vide email dated 04.03.2021, the plaintiff expressed his willingness to waive 5% increase for the year 2021 as also the penalties and interest accrued on account of late or non-payment of rent since April 2020. The plaintiff showed this goodwill gesture as India was battling fatal second wave of Covid-19 pandemic at that time.
80. Clause 33 of the lease deed provides that if the rent herein reserved or unpaid due to any reasons (except force majeure), for 60 days after becoming payable (whether formally or legally demanded or not ) then the Lessee shall pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per day to the LESSOR in addition to the monthly rent as penalty. The above said email would show that the plaintiff himself acted upon the exception of force majeure and waived off 5% increase for the year 2021 and the penalties and interest accrued on late payment of rent.
81. Thus, mesne profit/ damages equivalent to last paid rent @ Rs. 1,09,250/- per month are awarded for the period from 01.03.2021 to 31.12.2021 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 30/34ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD
82. As noted above, vide email dated 09.12.2019, the plaintiff revised the rent and reduced it to Rs. 99,000/- plus GST w.e.f. 01.03.2020 with a 5% increase after every twelve months for the remainder of the lease term. As per Lease Agreement dated 02.03.2016 (Ex.PW1/2), the rent was to be enhanced @ 15% after every three years. The suit property is a commercial property i.e. a shop whose rental income will only get increased with time.
83. In Judgment dated 02.09.2011 in RFA Nos. 458/2011 and 457/2011 titled as M/s M.C. Agrawal HUF Vs. M/s Sahara India & Ors. and M/s Sahara India & Ors. Vs. M/s M.C. Agrawal HUF, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that it would like to give benefit to landlord of various precedents of this Court and the Supreme Court which take judicial notice of increase of rent in the urban areas by applying the provisions of Sections 114 and 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872. An increase of 15% every year on the mesne profits was granted during the period for which the tenants over stayed in the tenanted premises.
84. In such circumstances, it would be just if mesne profit/ damages @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per month are granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant w.e.f. 01.01.2022 till the handing over of vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. In case the vacant physical possession of the suit property is not handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of decree, the mesne profit @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per month shall be enhanced @ 15% annually w.e.f. 01.12.2025. In other words, from 01.12.2025 till 30.12.2026 or till handing over the vacant possession of the suit property whichever is earlier, defendant will CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 31/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD pay 15% increased mesne profit over Rs. 1,20,000/- per month to the plaintiff. For the second year of illegal occupation, 15% increase will be over the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- per month plus the additional 15%. It will be, accordingly, for all subsequent years/ period of the illegal occupation till the premises are vacated.
85. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 4"4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP."
86. Onus to prove this issue was on plaintiff.
87. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has claimed interest @ 12% per annum on the outstanding amount. Keeping in view the fact that the suit property is commercial in nature, the interest claimed is reasonable. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the outstanding rent w.e.f. 28.02.2021 till filing of the present suit and pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till realization of the total outstanding rent amount. Pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the mesne profits/damages calculated from 01.03.2021 till the date of decree is also granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
88. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 32/34ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD RELIEF
89. In view of above discussion, the plaintiff is granted decree of
(i) possession of the suit shop bearing shop no. 1, Ground Floor, E-8, Main Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi, measuring 550 sq. ft. against the defendant who shall hand over the peaceful physical vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of decree,
(ii) recovery of outstanding rent against the defendant in sum of Rs. 6,23,220/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 28.02.2021 till the date of institution of the present suit and pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till realization of this amount, (iii) recovery of mesne profit/ damages @ Rs. 1,09,250/- per month for the period from 01.03.2021 to 31.12.2021 and @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per month in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant w.e.f. 01.01.2022 till the handing over of vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. It is further directed that in case the vacant physical possession of the suit property is not handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of decree, the mesne profit @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per month shall be enhanced @ 15% annually w.e.f. 01.12.2025. In other words, from 01.12.2025 till 30.12.2026 or till handing over the vacant possession of the suit property whichever is earlier, defendant will pay 15% increased mesne profit over Rs. 1,20,000/- per month to the plaintiff. For the second year of illegal occupation, 15% increase will be over the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- per month plus the additional 15%. It will be, accordingly, enhanced for all subsequent years/ period of the illegal occupation till the premises are vacated, (iv) recovery of pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the total mesne CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 33/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD profits/damages calculated from 01.03.2021 till the date of decree is also granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
90. It is further directed that the amounts of Rs. 5,13,025/- paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on 06.11.2021, Rs. 1,62,000/- on 11.11.2021 and Rs. 1,62,000/- on 31.01.2022 shall be adjusted towards the above mentioned amounts. The security amount of Rs. 11,40,000/- deposited by the defendant with the plaintiff in respect of the tenancy in question shall also be adjusted towards the outstanding rent and mesne profits/ damages.
91. The suit is decreed accordingly.
92. Decree sheet be prepared.
93. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 st DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 Digitally signed VRINDA by VRINDA KUMARI (VRINDA KUMARI) KUMARI Date: 2025.11.01 District Judge(Commercial Courts)- 03, 16:09:26 +0530 SED/Saket Courts/Delhi (R) CS (COMM) 513/21 31.10.2025 Page 34/34 ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. M.G. MOBILE INDIA PVT LTD