Mrs. Seema Sachdeva vs M/S Neo Hi-Tech Contractors on 29 January, 2022

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Mrs. Seema Sachdeva vs M/S Neo Hi-Tech Contractors on 29 January, 2022

  IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN:
    DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01:
       SOUTH-EAST, SAKET : NEW DELHI


CS (Comm) no. 502/2019
in the matter of:-

1.

Mrs. Seema Sachdeva W/o Sh. Deepak Sachdeva R/o Building no. 05, Prabhadevi Hartiskar Marg, Mumbai-400025 Through its SPA Holder Sh. Ram Ujagir Verma

2. Mrs. Shruti Gupta W/o Sh. Atul Gupta R/o 1429, Sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana, Through its SPA Holder Sh. Ram Ujagir Verma .....Plaintiffs VERSUS M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited, Through its Managing Director/Director Mr. Mukesh Hiranandani, Mr. Naveen Kumar Hiranandani 703, 7th Floor, Bhandari House, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

Also At:

M-30, 2nd Floor, Near Kapoor Beauty Parlour, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi .....Defendant (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 1/21 Date of institution : 06.12.2019 Arguments heard on : 29.01.2022 Date of decision : 29.01.2022 ORDER ON THE APPLICATION U/O XIII-A OF CPC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Proceedings through video conferencing )

1. By this order I propose to dispose off the application under order XIII-A of CPC moved by the plaintiff for passing summary judgment in this case.

2. Brief facts which gave rise to this application as alleged in the pleadings of the parties are that plaintiffs are the owner of the property bearing number 703, 7 th Floor, Bhandari House, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19 (hereinafter referred as "tenanted premises". The plaintiffs let out the said property to the defendant through SPA holder vide lease agreement dated 25.01.2016 executed for a period of 3 years commencing from 25.01.2016 to 22.01.2019. The rent of the tenanted premises was agreed as under:-

1 Rs.35,000 per month from 25.01.2016 to 24.01.2017 2 Rs.37,450 per month from 24.01.2017 to 23.01.2018 3 Rs.35,000 per month from 23.01.2018 to 22.01.2019

3. Plaintiff vide letter dated 18.04.2018 informed the defendant that defendant were not paying the lease amount since November 2017 and a sum of Rs. 2,12,350/- became (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 2/21 due from November 2017 to March 2018. The defendant failed to make the payment despite various reminders by the plaintiff as a result the plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice dated 02.05.2018 whereby terminated the Lease deed and requested the defendant to vacate the premises on or before 10.06.2018 and also demanded the all outstanding dues. The defendant replied to the said notice vide reply dated 18.05.2018, pleadings wrong and false facts. Defendant did not vacate the premises and also not paid the due amount. It is further stated that after termination of lease deed, defendant has become unlawful occupant of the premises and was liable to pay damages @ Rs. 2000/- per day for use and occupation of the tenanted premises. The total due amount has been detailed in para no. 14 of the plaintiff is as under :-

S. Particular's                                                   Amount (RS)
No
A     Arrears of lease from October 2018 to 5,76,730/-
      November 2019 @ 41,195 per month.

(plaintiff is not claiming here lease amount from November 2017 to September 2019 due to NCLT proceedings pending against the defendant) B Maintenance charges from January 2019 to 33,000 November 2019 @ 3,000/- per month C Masne-profit & damages @ Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. 6,00,000 Two Thousand) per day for use and occupation of the said property from 23.01.2019 till the date of handed over the peaceful and vacate possession of the suit premises.

Total amount 12,09,730/-

4. The plaintiffs filed petition under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi for non- payment of lease amount of Rs. 4,45,655/- from November 2017 to September 2018. However, the said petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, the present suit was instituted for passing of decree of possession of the tenanted premises alongwith arrears of rent, damages and mesne-profits as detailed in prayer clause:-

(a) Decree for recovery of possession of flat no. 703, 7th Floor, Bhandari House, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 admeasuring 503 sq.ft in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

(b) Decree of eviction from flat no. 703, 7th Floor, Bhandari House, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 admeasuring 503 sq.ft in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, their servants, agents, representatives and any other person acting for on behalf of defendant.

(c) Decree for recovery of arrears of lease from October 2018 to November 2019 of Rs. 5,76,730/- in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

(d) Decree for recovery of Rs. 33,000/- as (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 4/21 maintenance charges from the January 2019 to November 2019.

(e) Decree for recovery of Rs.

6,00,000/- mesne-profit and damages as per lease deed.

(f) Decree for recovery from mesne-

profit and damages @ 2000/- per day till from filing of the present suit till finally handed over the peaceful and vacate possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.

(g) Costs of the suit and litigation charges may please also allowed as per actual in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant.

(h) Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case may please be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant in the interest of justice.

5. Defendant has filed the written statement and contested the suit. It is submitted that lease deed has been extended from 25.01.2019 to 24.01.2022 by Sh. Ram Ujagir/representative of plaintiff.

6. It is further alleged that Sh. Ram Ujagir allowed the defendant to continue the tenancy on the previous rent @ 37, 450/- per month. It is further submitted that rent was always paid by cheque /NEFT/RTGS and Sh. Ram Ujagir received the rent by way of cash; defendant started paying the amount of rent in cash to Sh. Ram Ujagir on his personal request. It is further stated that notice dated 02.05.2018 has not terminated the tenancy because Sh. Ram Ujagir was receiving the rent after extension of lease period till 2022. It is further stated that defendant has invested the huge amount in renovation and decoration of the office after the extension of lease period and plaintiffs has not adjusted the amount which has been spent on the repair work and amount is Rs. 10 lacs because property was handed over in a dilapidated condition.

7. Before filing the application under order 13A CPC plaintiff has also filed application u/o 39 R 10 CPC as well as application under order 15A CPC. Since application for summary judgment has been moved in this case, therefore, I proceed to decide the said application.

8. In the summary judgment application under order 13A CPC, plaintiff has in brief reiterated the facts of the plaint and of application u/o 39 R 10 CPC. It is stated that petition before the NCLT was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.04.2021. It is stated that defendant has already admitted the registered lease deed dated 25.01.2016. It is further (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 6/21 alleged that defendant had made the bald averments without any supporting documents. It is further stated that as per lease deed lease amount has been paid by NEFT/cheque/RTGS only. The defendant contention that they have paid the rent in cash is to mislead the court without any supporting documentary evidence of payment of rent in cash. It is therefore prayed that there are sufficient ground for passing summary judgment in this case. It is therefore prayed to pass a summary judgment for relief claimed in the plaint and direct the defendant to pay the due lease amount and damages till the tenanted premises is vacated and peaceful possession is handed over.

9. The defendant has contested the application under order 13 A CPC by filing detailed reply stating that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts to the effect that plaintiffs are not true and lawful owner of the suit property as there is dispute between the plaintiffs and the owner Mr. Vinay Kumar Taneja and Smt. Suman Taneja; that the plaintiffs have wrongly entered into lease agreement claiming himself to be lawful owners of the property; electricity connection of the suit property has been disconnected since March 2020 and was not restored due to absence of No objection from the original owner Mrs and Mr. Taneja. It is further stated that application does not disclose specific claim of the plaintiffs and is liable to be dismissed. In para-wise reply the averments taken in the (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 7/21 written statement has been reiterated and it is further stated that the contents of the written statement are not denied by filing replication or in the present application to the effect that the plaintiff have not received the rent in cash or that the plaintiffs has not demanded the rent in cash through Authorised Representative. It is therefore stated that the application be dismissed.

10. Plaintiff has filed the rejoinder to the reply stating that lease period was from 25.01.2016 to 24.01.2019 thereafter defendant is in illegal possession without paying any rent. It is further stated that the reply is not maintainable as same is filed without supporting affidavit and defendant did not file supporting affidavit as they were aware that reply was based on false averments. On merits, it is stated that defendant has no locus to dispute the plaintiffs ownership because there is registered agreement Sell and Purchase dated 06.10.2009 already on record alongwith registered Sale deed executed by Sh.Vinay Kumar Taneja and Smt Suman Taneja in favour of plaintiffs. It is further submitted that there is no dispute pending in any court between Mrs. and Mr. Taneja with plaintiff regarding the suit properly. The defendant has disclosed no reasons as to why summary judgment should not be passed. The defendant themselves admitted the execution of the lease deed saying that the lease amount was regularly being paid. It is further alleged that the defendant has no real prospect to defend the claim of the (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 8/21 plaintiffs in the present case because the lease deed dated 25.01.2016 is admitted document by the defendant and no triable issue was disclosed for consideration. However, defence raised by the defendant is shame and moonshine and there is no reason why the claim should not be disposed off without recording of oral evidence. Regarding the electricity connection it is stated that same was disconnected due to non-payment of bill by the defendant and for that reasons defendant has not filed the current electricity bill and filed the electricity bill of 2018 and the electricity has been disconnected since March 2020. All averments in reply has been controverted and denied.

11. I have heard Ld counsel for the plaintiff and defendant.

12. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has reiterated the same facts in the form of his written arguments stating that the landlord and tenant relationship is admitted and tenancy was terminated by legal notice dated 02.05.2018 for non- payment of rent. It is further argued that tenancy has even expired in January 2019 and stand of defendant that the tenancy has been orally extended till January 2022 by Authorised Representative of plaintiff is false and fanciful arguments as there is no substance or no support. It is further argued that claim of the defendant that payment has been made in cash of rent is not supported by any documentary evidence and authorised representative of plaintiff has filed an affidavit giving details of the rent (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 9/21 received and categorically stated that no rent was received in cash. It is further argued that defendant is estopped from denying the ownership of the landlord /plaintiff qua the tenanted premises because they have admitted the lease deed and payment of rent under the said lease deed. It is therefore vehementally argued that defendant has no real prospect in the present suit which is liable to be decreed in favour of plaintiff. Ld counsel has referred and relied upon the case of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Su-Kam Power System Vs Kunwer Sachdeva & Ors 2019 SCC online Delhi 10764. Para no. 90 and 91 are relevant and reproduced as under:-

"90. To reiterate, the intent behind incorporating the summary judgment procedure in the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is to ensure disposal of commercial disputes in a time-bound manner. In fact, the applicability of Order XIIIA, CPC to commercial disputes, demonstrates that the trial is no longer the default procedure/norm.

91. Rule 3 of Order XIIIA, CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, empowers the Court to grant a summary judgment against the defendant where the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The expression "real" directs the Court to examine whether there is a "realistic" as opposed to "fanciful" prospects of success. This Court is of the (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 10/21 view that the expression "no genuine issue requiring a trial" in Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and "no other compelling reason.....for trial" in Commercial Courts Act can be read mutatis mutandis. Consequently, Order XIIIA, CPC would be attracted if the Court, while hearing such an application, can make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the same is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just result."

13. The defendant in their written arguments has reiterated the same facts as alleged in the reply to the application. It is argued that there is no allegations in the application for non-payment of rent by the defendant; present application is vague and frivolous as no specific period has been mentioned for which rent has not been paid/received. The plaintiff has not raised any dispute in the application for passing judgment without leading evidence.

14. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. As is evident from the pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgment Su-Kam Power System Vs Kunwer Sachdeva & Ors (Supra) order XIII-A CPC is applicable to commercial disputes, empowers the Court to grant a summary judgment against the defendant where the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospects of (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 11/21 successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.

15. The main arguments of the defendant is that after expiry of the registered lease deed dated 25.01.2019 same was orally extended by Sh. Ram Ujagir Verma representative of the plaintiffs and that Sh. Ram Ujagir Verma had been receiving the rent for the extended period till January 2022 in cash.

16. Both the parties were directed to file affidavit to clarify the alleged extension of lease deed orally after its expiry by Sh. Ram Ujagir Verma and receiving of the rent in cash by him. Plaintiff Ms. Seema Sachdeva and Sh. Ram Ujagir Verma have filed their affidavit.

17. In affidavit Ms. Seema Sachdeva has categorically stating as under:

"

1. ...........................

2. That in compliance to order dated 29.07.2021 of this Hon'ble Court. I further say that the Defendant had not paid lease amount to the plaintiff from November 2017 in any form i.e cash/NEFT/ Cheque/Pay Order/RTGS/Draft.

3. I further say that as per para no. 2 of the registered lease deed the lease amount (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 12/21 to be paid to the Plaintiff's either in cheque/NEFT/Draft/RTGS/ Pay order only.

4. I further say that as per the lease deed the defendant is liable to pay lease amount of Rs. 35,000/- per month from 25.01.2016 to 23.01.2017, Rs 37,450/- per month from 24.01.2017 to 23.01.2018 and Rs. 41,195/- per month from 23.01.2018 to 22.01.2019.

5. I further say that as per para 22 of the registered lease deed the Defendant is also liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- per day for use and occupation of the said property till the date premises are vacated. "

18. In affidavit Sh. Ram Ujagir Verma has categorically stating as under:

"

1. ...........................

2. ...........................

3. That in compliance to order dated 29.07.2021 of this Hon'ble Court. I further say that the Defendant had not paid lease amount to the plaintiff from November 2017 in any form i.e cash/NEFT/ Cheque/Pay Order/RTGS/Draft.

3. I further say that as per para no. 2 of the registered lease deed the lease amount to be paid to the Plaintiff's either in cheque/NEFT/Draft/RTGS/Pay order only.

19. Counter Affidavit has been filed by Sh. Naveen Kumar Hiranandani stating as under:-

1. That the deponent due to some typographical error, inadvertently and oversight in the earlier affidavit hereby filed this fresh/amended affidavit by curing those errors and it has been filed on the bonafide grounds. The deponent strongly opposed the contents of the (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 14/21 affidavit stated in para no. 4 of the affidavit sworn by Sh. Ram Ujjagir Verma filed with the replication/rejoinder that he has not received any cash amount as alleged by the defendants being paid as lease amount to him.

2. That the affidavit filed by Sh. Ram Ujjagir Verma is not specific and the contents of para no. 4 of the affidavit are vague and denied and do not show any bonafide of the deponent in respect of the submissions made in the para no. 4 of the affidavit. It is submitted that no specific period and amount has been mentioned in the said para and therefore the said affidavit is not acceptable in the eye of law and the same deserve the detailed evidence by calling him in the witness box for the proper adjudication of the case.

3. That Sh. Ram Ujjagir Verma always accepted the payment in cash on the pretext to part with payment of the lease amount between the two partners i.e plaintiffs herein as some difficulty has been faced by them in the bank transaction and also to make the payments towards some sundry expenses and (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 15/21 requested for the cash payment and the deponent adhere the same and accordingly the payment was given in cash and till filing of the case the plaintiffs never objected for not receiving payment towards lease amount.

4. That the electricity of the suit premises has been disconnected due to some dispute between the plaintiffs and the original owner Mr. Vinay Kumar Taneja and the same has not been restored despite various efforts as the electricity department wanted a letter for restoration from the registered owner of the property and this was apprised to Sh. Ram Ujjagir Verma number of times. It was always assured by him that the dispute will be shortly resolve and the electricity will be restore but till date no action has been taken. The deponent herein has sufficient material to prove in evidence by calling witnesses for making the payment in cash to Sh. Ram Ujjagir Verma and also to call the electricity department in the witness box to prove the submissions. "

20. It is evident from the affidavits and counter-

(Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 16/21 affidavit as discussed above that the plaintiff and Sh. Ram Ujjagir representative of plaintiff has categorically denied that they have received any rent in cash. The onus was shifted to the defendant to prove the said fact. Admittedly defendant has not placed on record any documentary evidence regarding payment of rent in cash to Sh. Ram Ujjagir which otherwise would have been contrary to the para no. 2 of the registered lease deed which stipulated that rent will be paid by way of cheque /NEFT/RTGS. Admittedly the lease deed has expired in January 2019 and the lease deed stands determined by efflux of time, defendant has become unauthorized occupant in the suit property. There is no substance in the alleged defence of the defendant that lease deed has been extended by Sh.Ram Ujjagir orally till January 2022. Even alleged extended oral lease has also expired due to efflux of time but defendant has not vacated the premises and has also not paid any rent to the plaintiff.

21. Regarding maintainability of the application under order 13A CPC in this case, it is to be noticed that summary judgment can be passed on the same analogy as judgment on admissions under order 12 R 6 CPC and there is no triable issues which arise for consideration and further there are reasons for allowing claim without oral evidence and that the defence raised by the defendant is a moonshine and sham. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Venezia (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 17/21 Mobili (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ramprastha Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd and Ors 2019 SCC online Delhi 7761, para no. 33 and 36 are relevant and reproduced as under:-

"33. Rule 3 of Order XIII-A empowers the Court to give a summary judgment against a defendant on a claim if it considers that it has no real prospect of succeeding or successfully defending the claim, and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence (See: Bright Enterprises Private Limited & Anr. vs. MJ Bizcraft LLP & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6394).

36. Consequently, broadly speaking, the basis for seeking summary judgment as well as judgment on admission is the same i.e. that there is no triable issue which arises for consideration, there are reasons for allowing the claim without oral evidence and the defence raised by the defendants is a moonshine and a sham. "

22. On perusal of the averments in the plaint and admissions contained in the written statement, I am of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case are squarely covered by the ratio of Venezia Mobili (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ramprastha Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd and Ors (supra). In view of these facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that defendant has no real prospect of succeeding or successfully defending (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 18/21 the claim, and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. No purpose would be served by proceeding the matter further for recording the oral evidence. Regarding the alleged payment in cash the affidavit and counter- affidavit of the parties are already on record in that regard. Moreover, defendant has failed to bring on record any material to prove the extension of lease deed orally by the representative of the plaintiff and receiving of the rent in cash by him.

23. For the reasons discussed above and the judgments i.e Su-Kam Power System Vs Kunwer Sachdeva & Ors (Supra) and Venezia Mobili (India) Pvt. Ltd (Supra), the said defence raised is apparently moonshine as no triable issues are raised by said defence, no oral evidence is required for disposal of the matter in this case and it is a fit case to be disposed off by way of summary judgment under order 13A CPC.

24. Thus, all grounds for passing the summary judgment under order XIII-A of the CPC has been made out in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant. Application for summary judgment under order XIII-A of the CPC is allowed.

25. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:

(a) Decree for recovery of possession of flat no. 703, (Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 19/21 7th Floor, Bhandari House, Nehru Place, New Delhi-

110019 admeasuring 503 sq.ft in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant with the directions to the defendants to vacate the premises in question immediately.

(b) Decree of eviction from flat no. 703, 7 th Floor, Bhandari House, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 admeasuring 503 sq.ft in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, their servants, agents, representatives and any other person acting for on behalf of defendant.

(c) Decree for recovery of arrears of lease rent from October 2018 to November 2019 of Rs. 5,76,730/- in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

(d) Decree for recovery of Rs. 33,000/- as maintenance charges from the January 2019 to November 2019.

(e) Decree for recovery of Rs. 6,00,000/- mesne-profit and damages as per lease deed.

(f) Decree for recovery of mesne- profit and damages @ 2000/- per day from filing of the present suit till finally handing over the peaceful and vacate possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.

(g) Costs of the suit also awarded in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant.

26. Suit of the plaintiff is disposed off accordingly in above terms.

27. Additional court fee, if any, be paid by the plaintiff.

28. Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly.

29. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by RAJ RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN KUMAR Announced through CHAUHAN Date:

2022.01.29 Video conferencing 16:20:04 +0200 on 29.01.2022.

(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, New Delhi.

The order contains 21 pages all checked and signed by me.

(Seema Sachdeva & others Vs M/s Neo Hi-Tech Contractors Private Limited) (CS(comm) no.502/2019 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South-East, Saket, Delhi. 29.01.2022 Page no.......... 21/21

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Mrs. Seema Sachdeva vs M/S Neo Hi-Tech Contractors on 29 January, 2022