Delhi District Court
Ravi Kumar Jain vs Footprints Childcare Private Limited on 10 March, 2026
CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW01-009032-2021
Civil Suit (Comm.) No.616/2021
In the matter of:
Shri Ravi Kumar Jain,
S/o Late Shri Prem Chand Jain,
R/o House No.CD-163, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
E.Mail ID: [email protected]
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Munish Gupta, Advocate)
Versus
1. Footprints Childcare Private Limited,
Through Its Directors.
Registered Office At: 308, Aggarwal Towers,
Plot No.2, Sector-5, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
.....Defendant
(Through Shri Siddharth Shankar, Advocate)
(NB: Defendants No.2, 3 and 4 namely Shri Ashish Aggarwal,
Shri Raj Kumar Singhal and Shri Purvesh Sharma respectively,
were deleted from the array of parties vide Order dated 28.02.2023,
being Directors of defendant No.1 company)
Date of Institution of Suit : 17.11.2021
Date of transfer to this Court : 09.08.2023
Date of hearing final arguments : 18.02.2026
Date of judgment : 10.03.2026
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
YADAV
YADAV 2026.03.10
Date:
16:50:14 +0530 Page 1 of 24
CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
COMMERCIAL SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.83,99,500/- (Rupees Eighty
Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred Only) BESIDES INTEREST
PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE
10.03.2026
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's case:
1. The plaintiff is the owner of property bearing No.CD-163, Pitampura, Delhi-110034, consisting of ground, first, second floor and terrace above (hereinafter referred to as the "said property"). The bone of contention between the parties is the ground floor of said property (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property").
2. The suit property was let out to defendant by plaintiff vide registered Lease Deed dated 05.07.2019. The lease period infact had started from 01.07.2019. The lease deed was to enure for a period of six years and it was created only and only for running a pre-nursery school-
cum-day care centre. The monthly rent of suit property was agreed to be Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand Only), exclusive of electricity charges, which was to be borne by the defendant as per the consumption. A sum of Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only) (three months' advance rent) was deposited by the defendant by way of refundable security with the plaintiff.
3. The defendant made regular payment(s) of the monthly rent till March' 2020 and thereafter on account of onslaught of Covid-19 pandemic, the defendant stopped making payment of the rent w.e.f Page 2 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 01.04.2020, which made the plaintiff to request the defendant many times through telephonic calls, e.mails, messages and other modes for clearance of the outstanding rent amount, but to no avail. Thereafter, in the month of January' 2021, the defendant approached the plaintiff and unilaterally offered the plaintiff as under:
(i) Rent @ Rs.50,000/- per month will be paid from 01.01.2021 to 30.06.2021 to the plaintiff;
(ii) From 01.07.2021, the rent @ Rs.1,30,000/- per month will be paid to the plaintiff;
(iii) Previous period from April' 2020 till December' 2020 shall be rent free period.
4. The plaintiff was not ready to the aforesaid unilateral proposal, but still thought of watching the conduct of defendant. It has been claimed that thereafter the defendant voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) in the account of plaintiff without his consent.
5. When attempts of the plaintiff to secure the outstanding rent did not materialise, then he sent a legal notice to defendant on 07.09.2021, seeking payment of the outstanding rent, but to no avail. It has been stated that defendant of its own volition vacated the suit property on 23.08.2021, in violation of the registered lease deed, without making payment of the outstanding rent amount. The plaintiff has claimed following amount in this suit alongwith pendentelite and future interest @18% per annum.
Page 3 of 24CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
(a) Arrears of rent Rs.19,79,670/-
(From 01.04.2020 to 23.08.2021)
(b) Penalty Rs.42,75,217/-
(From 11.04.2020 to 11.09.2021) After adjusting the amount of security (Rs.46,60,000/- - Rs.3,84,783)
(c) Rent upto the time of lock in period Rs.13,30,330/- (From 24.08.2021 to 03.06.2022)
(d) Interest @ 18% per annum on penalty Rs. 8,14,283/-
Total Rs.83,99,500/-
6. It is a matter of record that before filing the present suit, plaintiff had also approached for pre-institution mediation in terms of Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Despite service of pre- institution mediation notice, the defendant did not give his consent and willingness to participate in the mediation process. Accordingly, Certificate of Non-Starter Report dated 16.10.2021 was issued in the matter.
Defendant's case:
7. (i) After getting served with the summons, defendant filed written statement, inter alia invoking "Force Majeure", as set out in para 11 of the lease deed and claimed that Covid-19 pandemic could not have been foreseen or taken guard against by the parties and as such, there was impossibility of utilization of the suit property for the purpose it was taken on lease. The grounds of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence were also taken.
Page 4 of 24CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
(ii) On merits, it was contended that a meeting/negotiation had taken place between the parties on 19.01.2021, whereby both the parties had agreed as under:
(a) Rent of Rs.50,000/- per month will be paid from 01.01.2021 to 30.06.2021 to the plaintiff;
(b) From 01.07.2021, the rent @ Rs.1,30,000/- per month will be paid to the plaintiff;
(c) Previous period from April' 2020 till December' 2020 shall be rent free period because of Covid-19 situation;
(d) Electricity and maintenance charges will be paid on actual basis;
(e) In case the above pandemic relief/compromise are not met and fulfilled by the lessee, then the above pandemic relief/compromise shall stand null and void.
8. The said understanding was duly acted upon by the parties in as much as the defendant paid the rent for the months of January' 2021 to April' 2021 @ Rs.50,000/- per month and thereafter the parties negotiated further on 16.08.2021, whereby a draft "Lease Termination Agreement" for cancellation of lease deed dated 05.07.2019 and surrendering of suit property by the defendant was agreed upon. The said draft "Lease Termination Agreement" was revised under the supervision of learned counsel for the plaintiff and the revised Draft was shared with the defendant, who acted upon it and vacated the suit property on 23.08.2021.
Page 5 of 24CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
9. Plaintiff filed replication, inter alia denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the ones made in the plaint.
10. With these pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 19.10.2023, following issues were settled for trial in the matter:
Issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages/penalty amount, as prayed for? If so, its effect? OPP.
(iii) If answer to Issue No.(i) is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
(vi) Relief. Plaintiff's evidence: 11. (a) In order to discharge the onus of proving issues put upon it, plaintiff examined three witnesses. The plaintiff/Shri Ravi Kumar Jain
examined himself as PW-1, who in his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.PW1/A has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and proved on record the following documents:
(i) Copy of registered Lease Deed, dated 05.07.2019 as Ex.PW1/1;
(ii) Office copy of legal notice dated 07.09.2021, sent on behalf of plaintiff to the defendant as Ex.PW1/2;
(iii) Original postal receipts thereof as Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/9;
(iv) Delivery Report regarding service of legal notice through Page 6 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 E.Mail and WhatsApp as Ex.PW1/10 (Colly) (two pages);
(v) Printouts of WhatsApp chats and E.Mails exchanged between the parties as Ex.PW1/11 (Colly) (three pages);
(vi) Reply of defendant dated 16.09.2021 to the legal notice of plaintiff dated 07.09.2021 as Ex.PW1/12;
(vii) Invoices of Tuition Fees etc., issued by defendant to its students as Ex.PW1/13 (Colly) (03 pages);
(viii) Receipts of Tuition Fees etc., issued by defendant to its students as Ex.PW1/14 (Colly) (two pages);
(ix) Account Statement of defendant for the period March' 2021- April' 2021 in respect of child Nabhith Harbhajanka as Ex.PW1/15;
(x) Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, issued under the signatures of PW-1 as Ex.PW1/16;
(xi) Certificate of Non-Starter Report dated 16.10.2021, issued under the signatures of Secretary, DLSA, North-West as Ex.PW1/17;
(b) PW-1 was thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendant, wherein in para 10 this witness initially denied the suggestion that possession of the suit property had been received by him on 23.08.2021 under some settlement, however, when he was further cross-
examined then he went into evasive mode, which I will advert to at the stage of analysis of the evidence, however, in the later part of his cross- examination, as appearing in para 12 to para 14, he admitted the "Lease Termination Agreement", which I will again refer to at the stage of analysis.
Page 7 of 24CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
(c) In his cross-examination, documents Ex.PW1/DX1 (Colly) which are printouts of two E.Mails; Ex.PW1/DX2 which is E.Mail dated 20.08.2021 sent by PW-1 to his counsel; and Ex.PW1/DX3 which is copy of Agreement for termination and surrender of lease were put to him, and the same were not disputed by him. I will advert to the said documents a little later.
12. PW-2 Shri Akshay Dabas, Junior Assistant from the O/o Sub- Registrar, VIA, Pitampura, Delhi has proved on record certified true copy of Lease Deed, dated 05.07.2019, executed between PW-1 and defendant qua the suit property as Ex.PW2/1 (OSR).
13. PW-3 Shri Shrey Harbhajanka (father of child/student Nabhith Harbhajanka) in his evidence has relied upon the invoices of tuition fees, issued by defendant, which have already been proved in the evidence PW-1 as already Ex.PW1/13 (Colly), Ex.PW1/14 (Colly) and Ex.PW1/15.
Defendant's evidence:
14. (a) On the other hand, defendant company also examined three witnesses in the matter. DW-1 Shri Shri Ashish Aggarwal, one of the Directors of defendant company in his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.DW1/A has reiterated the averments made in the written statement and proved on record the following documents:
(i) Copy of Board Resolution, dated 25.05.2022, passed by defendant company in favour of DW-1 as Mark A (inadvertently Page 8 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 mentioned as Ex.DW1/1 in the affidavit by way of evidence);
(ii) True copy of e.mail dated 30.01.2021, sent by the defendant to the plaintiff as Ex.DW1/2 (running into two pages);
(iii) Copies of four electronic payment receipts (NEFT) made by defendant to the plaintiff as Ex.DW1/3 (Colly);
(iv) Copy of legal notice and e.mail dated 07.07.2021, sent by plaintiff to the defendant as Ex.DW1/4 (Colly) (03 pages);
(v) Copy of reply dated 31.07.2021, sent by defendant to the plaintiff as Mark B (inadvertently mentioned as Ex.DW1/5 in the evidence affidavit);
(vi) Copy of E.Mail dated 16.08.2021, sent by defendant to the plaintiff alongwith copy of Draft Agreement for Termination And Surrender of Lease as Ex.DW1/6 (Colly) (running into four pages);
(vii) Copy of E.Mail dated 20.08.2021, sent by defendant to the plaintiff as Ex.DW1/7 alongwith revised copy of Agreement for Termination And Surrender of Lease (already Ex.PW1/DX-3);
(viii) Copy of E.Mail dated 21.08.2021, sent by defendant to the plaintiff as Ex.DW1/8;
(ix) Copy of E.Mail dated 22.08.2021, sent by defendant to the plaintiff as Ex.DW1/9;
(x) Copy of printouts of e.mail threads as Ex.PW1/10 (a part whereof from point 'a' to 'a' is already Ex.PW1/DX-2);
(xi) Copy of reply dated 12.10.2021, sent by defendant to plaintiff as Mark C (inadvertently mentioned as Ex.DW1/11 in my evidence affidavit);Page 9 of 24
CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
(xii) Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, with regard to E.Mails mentioned at S.No.2(ii) S.No.(vi) to (ix) hereinabove as Ex.DW1/12;
(xiii) Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, with regard to electronic payment receipts mentioned at S.No.3 and 4 hereinabove as Ex.DW1/13;
(b) DW-1 was thoroughly cross-examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, the record pertaining to consolidated revenues generated and profit earned by three companies for the year 2020-21, 2021-22/Independent Auditor's Report were put as Ex.DW1/X, Ex.DW1/Y and Ex.DW1/Z. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that there was no written signed Agreement dated 19.01.2021, however, he stated that intention of the parties stood reflected in E.Mail dated 30.01.2021 (Ex.DW1/2). This witness further admitted that he did not have any written signed document agreeing for vacation of the suit property without making payment of rent due, however, the witness referred to Lease Termination Agreement Ex.PW1/DX3.
15. (i) DW-2 Shri Sudipto Bhattacharya, Administrative Head of defendant company in his evidence by way Affidavit Ex.DW2/A has also deposed on the lines of DW-1.
(ii) In his cross-examination, this witness stated that defendant had not issued 35 cheques in advance to the plaintiff towards the rent as per lease deed Ex.PW1/1.
Page 10 of 24CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
16. (i) DW-3 Shri Pankaj Katiyal, A.R of defendant company in his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.DW3/A has also deposed on the lines of DW-1.
(ii) In his cross-examination, this witness stated that he had no role to play in taking the suit property on rent by the defendant from the plaintiff and consequent execution of lease deed Ex.PW1/1.
17. This is all as far as evidence recorded in the matter is concerned.
18. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by Shri Munish Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Shri Siddharth Shankar, Advocate, learned counsel for the defendant and gone through the entire material on record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of defendant. My issue wise findings in the matter are as under.
19. Issue No.(i):
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
And Issue No.(ii):
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages/penalty amount, as prayed for? If so, its effect? OPP.
The onus to prove both the aforesaid issues was upon the plaintiff. Both these issues are being taken up together as the same are inter-connected and findings thereupon would be common. The learned Page 11 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 counsel for the plaintiff has very vehemently argued that written statement signed by DW-1 is not a legally sustainable document and as such, the written statement cannot be considered. It has further been pointed out that Board Resolution Mark A does not legally authorize DW-1 to file written statement and depose in the matter. I do not find any substance in this argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff in the teeth of fact that plaintiff has nowhere denied DW-1 to be the Director of defendant company. Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC clearly authorises the Director of a company to file written statement and depose in the matter in his capacity as Director. Although, I agree with the submissions that Board Resolution, dated 25.05.2022 Mark A, authorizing DW-1 to depose in the matter is not supported by the Minutes of Meeting, but that was not required under the law because DW-1 is admittedly the Director of defendant and his deposition amounts to due ratification by the defendant. I am supported in my aforesaid view because of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as, "(1996) 6 SCC 660", titled as, "United Bank of India V/s Naresh Kumar & Ors." (DOD: 18.09.1996), whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
10. It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or Page 12 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 other Principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and de hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of it's officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of it's officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by it's officer.
xxxxx (underlining which is mine is emphasized)
20. It was next contended that plaintiff had never agreed for the following terms:
Page 13 of 24CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
(i) Rent @ Rs.50,000/- per month will be paid from 01.01.2021 to 30.06.2021 to the plaintiff;
(ii) From 01.07.2021, the rent @ Rs.1,30,000/- per month will be paid to the plaintiff;
(iii) Previous period from April' 2020 till December' 2020 shall be rent free period.
21. It is contended that for the sake of arguments, even if the aforesaid conditions are presumed to have been agreed upon, then the defendant having not paid the rent for the months of May' 2020 and June' 2020 would render the said Agreement null and void. I am not at all impressed with this argument and the reasons for the same are as under:
(a) There has been a material concealment in the plaint by the plaintiff with regard to the following facts:
(i) Legal Notice dated 07.07.2021 (Ex.DW1/4), admittedly sent by the plaintiff to the defendant and the reply thereto dated 31.07.2021 (Mark B) has nowhere been mentioned in the plaint.
(ii) This legal notice clearly speaks about the settlement having been entered into between the parties agreeing to aforesaid terms.
(b) The plaintiff has conveniently concealed the "Lease Termination Agreement" Ex.PW1/DX3 as well as the E.Mail exchanges Ex.PW1/DX2. Had the plaintiff made an honest disclosure about the Page 14 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 aforesaid documents, then it would have been abundantly clear to this Court that plaintiff had entered into a "Lease Termination Agreement" with the defendant, the draft whereof was sent by the defendant to plaintiff on 20.08.2021 and it was in turn assured by the plaintiff that his counsel on the very same day had revised the same and as such revised "Lease Termination Agreement" Ex.PW1/DX3 had come into being. The aforesaid document has been duly admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination.
Let us see as to what was agreed upon between the parties by way of Ex.PW1/DX3:
__________________________________________ xxxxx Agreement for Termination And Surrender of Lease Now therefore, parties hereby record legally binding mutual covenants, terms, conditions and understandings pursuant to which the Lease Agreement is being terminated:
1. ...........
2. The Lessor hereby acknowledges that Lessee has discharged all the Lessee's payments, other obligations, etc., under Lease Agreement, in full until the Effective Date and there are no payments, claims, actions, dues, liabilities, etc. that Lessor may have towards Lessee arising out of Lease Agreement, including but not limited to to all monthly rental outstanding rental, interest on late payments, dues, any designated authority payments & bills for the utilities consumed, etc., and Lessor acknowledges there are no outstanding amounts with respect to Lessee's tenancy under Lease Page 15 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 Agreement.
(a) The Security Deposit Amount which has been paid by Footprints Childcare Ltd to the Lessor at the time of Lease Agreement will be adjusted here against all the pending dues.
3. Unless otherwise captured under this Agreement, the parties hereby acknowledge and declare that from Effective Date onwards, no rights or obligations of either party have survived and the Lease Agreement stand terminated from the effective date.
4. Parties hereby acknowledge that on the effective date, the Lessee has vacated the Leased Premises and handed over the vacant, quiet and peaceful possession of the Leased Premises alongwith the entire original & installed fit outs and fixtures (subject to normal wear & tear) to Lessor. Furthermore, Lessor acknowledges that the Lessor is satisfied in this respect and has accepted such handover of Leased Premises and acknowledges that there are no unresolved issues and claims regarding the same.
xxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------
22. This document demolishes the entire case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 denotes that a deed constitutes the primary evidence of the terms to which the parties are to adhere. Whereas Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 forbids any contradictions or variations in a written document by extrinsic evidence. Even though the Page 16 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 oral evidence is admissible on the contents of documents, it has to be under the proviso mentioned in Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to contend contrary to the admitted document Ex.PW1/DX3.
23. Now, let us analyze the cross-examination of PW-1/Shri Ravi Kumar Jain on this aspect.
__________________________________________ xxxxx 17.05.2024 PW-1: Shri Ravi Kumar Jain.
xxxxx By Shri Siddharth Shankar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
...............
10. The possession of the suit property was received by me on 23.08.2021. It is wrong to suggest that the possession of the suit property was handed over to me by the defendant under some settlement.
11. I do not recollect that any Draft Settlement was sent to me by the defendant on 16.08.2021 regarding vacation of the suit property, however, something was received by me which I do not know. It is correct that my e.mail ID is "[email protected]". I do not recollect that after receipt of the aforesaid something, I had asked the defendant that I will revert back to it after consulting my lawyer. I do not recollect that on 19.08.2021, I had called the defendant communicating that I have consulted my lawyer, who has suggested some changes in the Lease Page 17 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 Termination Agreement. I further do not recollect that on 20.08.2021, I was sent corrected Lease Termination Agreement by the defendant on my aforesaid e.mail ID as an attachment thereto.
12. At this stage, the attention of the witness is drawn to e.mail dated 20.8.2021 at 1:27 PM, purpotedly sent by him to the e.mail ID of his counsel Shri Manish Gupta, Advocate. The witness after going through the said e.mail has admitted the same to be correct, which is now Ex.PW1/DX2 from point "a" to "a". I do not recollect whether Ex.PW1/DX2 contains the attachment which was sent to me on 20.08.2021 by the defendant as Lease Termination Agreement.
13. It is correct that after consulting my lawyer, I agreed to the Lease Termination Agreement. It is further correct that the possession of the suit property was received by me after I had agreed to the Lease Termination Agreement.
14. At this stage, the attention of witness is drawn to a copy of Agreement for termination and surrender of lease (page 30-31 of the documents filed by the defendant).
Q: Whether this is the same Agreement to which you had agreed?
Ans.: It is the same document to which I had agreed, as referred to my answers given to the previous questions. The same is now Ex.PW1/DX-3. Voltd. I had never agreed to forego the arrears of rent/damages/penalty.
xxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------
Page 18 of 24CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
24. The law with regard to the effect of concealment of material facts is fairly settled that the same amounts to fraud upon the Court. In case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.5239/2002", titled as, "Dalip Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors." (DOD: 03.12.2009), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to stress upon the purity of proceedings before the Court in following golden words, to quote:
xxxxx
1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.
The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
xxxxx
25. Further, in case reported as, "Criminal Appeal No.303/2024", titled as, "Kusha Duruka V/s State of Odisha" (DOD: 19.01.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
3. About three decades ago, this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma was faced with a situation where an attempt was made to Page 19 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 deceive the Court and interfere with the administration of justice. The litigant was held to be guilty of contempt of court. It was a case in which husband had filed fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings. Finding him guilty of contempt of court, he was sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment by this Court. This Court observed as under:
"1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State.
Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
***
14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of Page 20 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 justice. It would,in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated documents is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."
4. In K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others it was observed by this Court:
"39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court."
[emphasis supplied] xxxxx
26. Further, in case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.2971/1995", titled as, "B.L Sreedhar & Ors. V/s K.M Munireddy (Dead) And Page 21 of 24 CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026 Ors."(DOD: 05.12.2002), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx
30. If a man either by words or by conduct has intimated that he consents to an act which has been done and that he will not offer any opposition to it, although it could not have been lawfully done without his consent, and he thereby induces others to do that which they otherwise might have abstained from, he cannot question legality of the act he had sanctioned to the prejudice of those who have so given faith to his words or to the fair inference to be drawn from his conduct.
xxxxx
27. If the law laid down in the aforesaid authorities is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, then the plaintiff is found to be guilty of concealing material facts as well as approbation and reprobation in the same proceedings. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clearly evident that parties had negotiated the terms of settlement of the rent, bearing in mind the Covid-19 pandemic situation and the said Agreement in any case is not against the public policy. The said Agreement was duly acted upon, albeit with default of rent of two months, i.e for May' 2021 and June' 2021 @ Rs.50,000/- per month. The plaintiff deliberately concealed the legal notice Ex.DW1/4 (Colly) as well as the Lease Termination Agreement Ex.PW1/DX3, the disclosure whereof would have left the plaintiff clearly without jural succor.
Page 22 of 24CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
28. The plaintiff has not stated anywhere either in the plaint or in his evidence that refundable security of Rs.3,90,000/- was ever repaid by him to the defendant.
29. Therefore, the following conclusion can be safely arrived at in the matter:
(a) That defendant was in default of rent of two months, I.e for May' 2021 and June' 2021, I.e a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- x 2 months) and there appears to be a justification for non-payment of the aforesaid rent because the defendant had offered to terminate the lease and had clearly agreed that the security deposit would be adjusted towards the outstanding rent, if any.
(b) As per the terms of settlement, plaintiff was entitled to rent for the months of July' 2021 and August' 2021 @ Rs.1,30,000/- per month, which comes out to Rs.2,60,000/- and as such, the total entitlement of plaintiff in the matter is held to be Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.2,60,000/-).
(c) Whereas, the refundable security of defendant lying deposited with the plaintiff is Rs.3,90,000/-, therefore, there was no legal entitlement of the plaintiff to have filed the present suit. Both the issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
Page 23 of 24CS (Comm) No.616/2021: Ravi Kumar Jain V/s Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd.: DOD: 10.03.2026
30. Issue No.(iii):
If answer to Issue No.(i) is in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereupon. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
This issue is consequential to issues No.(i) and (ii). Since, issues No.(i) and (ii) have been decided against the plaintiff, this issue is rendered infructuous.
31. Relief:
(i) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for having defended the suit for almost five years.
(ii) The suit filed by the plaintiff accordingly stands dismissed with cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. In the end, I restrain myself from initiating proceedings under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (erstwhile 340 Cr.P.C) against the plaintiff. Suffice it to say, that the plaintiff should not venture to do such misadventure in future.
32. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
33. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities. Digitally signed VINOD byYADAV VINOD YADAV Date: 2026.03.10 16:50:26 +0530 Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav) open Court on 10.03.2026 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 North-West/Rohini Court Page 24 of 24