Delhi District Court
Rashi Jain vs Sushan Pal Soni on 8 December, 2025
In the Court of Shri Ashutosh Kumar, District Judge (Commercial
Court)-01, Tis Hazari Courts, West District, Delhi
CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021
CNR No.DLWT010032332021
In the matter of :
Mrs Rashi Jain
D/o Sh Inder Sain Jain
Proprietor of Mahavir Jain Academy
R/o RZP-101, Sector -8, Raj Nagar,
Part II, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077
........Plaintiff
Versus
Mr Sushan Pal Soni
S/o Sh Satya Pal Soni
A-11, Second Floor,
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi 110 027
Permanent resident of
30, Ava, Crescent, Rishmond Hill, Ontario,
L4B2X2, Canada
.......Defendant
Date of Institution : 07-04-2021
Date of hearing of arguments : 03-12-2025
Date of decision : 08-12-2025
Ld. Counsels for plaintiff -Sh Saurabh Jain
Ld Counsel for Defendant - Sh Neeraj Sharma
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit is filed by the plaintiff, Rashi Jain, proprietor of CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.1 of 23 Mahavir Jain Academy, which is an educational institution engaged in providing coaching services, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till actual realization alongwith damages and costs of the suit, against the defendant, who is a permanent resident of Canada and was being corresponded by the plaintiff through one Prachi Jain.
2. It is claimed by the plaintiff that defendant had entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff for premises bearing no. A-11, Second Floor, Rajouri Garden, admeasuring 800 sq ft., registered vide registration no. 11, 408 in Book No. I, Vol. No. 24,576 dated 01-10-2019, for a period of 6 years (hereinafter referred to as suit property), on a monthly rent of Rs. 64,000/- for a period of 11 months from the date of entering into the lease deed. It is further stated by the plaintiff that raw premises was handed over to her by the defendant and with the purposes of upgrading the structure of the suit property, plaintiff had installed fitting, fixtures, furniture, electronics and even structural designing in the premises, worth Rs. 9,99,035/-, as per the details mentioned in paragraph no. 7 of the plaint, which had benefited the defendant as the same enhanced the overall value of the suit property. Further the said renovation and restructuring of the suit premises was photographed. It is claimed that apart from the aforesaid installations, plaintiff's other things comprising of cameras, CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.2 of 23 inverters, electric fittings, books, printers, monitors, computers, ACs, TVs, water dispenser, marketing material, stationery, stock of new laptop bags, student chairs, signboards etc were also lying in the suit premises. Plaintiff has claimed that from the aforesaid list of renovation, restructuring and materials lying in the suit premises, it can be ascertained that the plaintiff had invested a substantial amount for the up-gradation of the suit premises and incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs approximately, which were acknowledged by the defendant.
3. Plaintiff has claimed that she was having flawless record and goodwill in the market and had intended to develop long term relationship with the defendant and therefore had invested such huge amount in the suit premises but soon after the installation of above material and restructuring of the suit premises in the month of March, 2020, due to sudden outbreak of pandemic, nationwide lock-down was imposed and all offices and businesses were shut and since plaintiff was providing coaching classes, the same completely devastated plaintiff's business and she could not pay rentals to the defendant.
4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in April, 2020, considering the situation prevailing in the entire country, the plaintiff informed the defendant regarding discontinuance of lease agreement asking the defendant for the security deposit and the aforesaid money which she had incurred on restructuring of the CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.3 of 23 suit premises inclusive of fittings and fixtures and had also tried to sub-let the tenanted premises as per defendant's advise but failed to do so due to slump in the economy as a result of covid. Further it is claimed that the plaintiff had handed over the keys of the suit premises to the defendant conveying her willingness to remove all the furnishing and fixtures installed in the suit premises at her cost, to which defendant had suggested to let them be there assuring her that he would make an arrangement for payment of the same, upon which the plaintiff left the aforesaid fittings and fixtures at the suit premises and did not force for taking the same back.
5. Plaintiff has further claimed that on 17-11-2020, she was shocked to know that without informing her and settling her aforesaid expenditure, the defendant had rented the suit premises alongwith all the furnishings and fixtures to one company 'Dell Computers'. It is also claimed that defendant also sent a false, vague and baseless e-mail mentioning all wrong cost and imposed rent for the lock down period illegally and irrationally, which clearly showed that defendant had mala fide intention to usurp the hard earned money of the plaintiff, which she had invested in the suit premises and could not reap its benefits due to covid. Plaintiff also claimed that the defendant also did not return two months security deposit.
6. It is further the case of the plaintiff that since despite number of CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.4 of 23 coordination made by her, the defendant did not settle the dispute and therefore plaintiff had served legal notice upon the defendant on 15-12-2020, which was received and replied by the defendant vide his reply dated 26-12-2020.
7. Per contra, defendant in preliminary objections of his written statement has claimed that the suit is liable to be stayed as the dispute between the parties is covered under the arbitration clause of registered lease deed dated 01-10-2019 and further claimed that the suit is liable to be dismissed being sheer misuse of process of law and filed without any cause of action, liable to be dismissed under order VII Rule 11 CPC, the suit being wholly misconceived, unspecific and vague based on surmises and conjuncture.
8. In his reply on merits, the defendant has admitted the factum of entering into the lease agreement dated 01-10-2019 and security deposit of Rs. 1,28,000/- by the plaintiff. The defendant has claimed that since the said lease agreement was not legally terminated and plaintiff also did not clear the pending rent arrears and therefore, the defendant was not obliged to return the security amount. He has further claimed that the plaintiff was guilty of violating the terms of admitted lease deed by erecting structural changes and alteration by damaging the suit premises to make it more suitable for her purpose, which has caused substantial damages to the premises and in fact depreciated and devalued the CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.5 of 23 premises. Defendant has categorically denied the details and description of the alleged work got done and items installed by the plaintiff. Defendant has claimed that he had never directed the plaintiff to instal A/C, fans, TV, computer, monitor, water dispenser, student chair, signboard etc. in the premises and further stated that the plaintiff had made the investment as per her own requirements. It is claimed that the plaintiff was never restrained by the defendant from taking away her belongings from the suit premises, which she could have taken at the time of handing over the keys but in fact the plaintiff herself had left all the material as she would have to take another property on rent to keep all the alleged furniture and fixtures and furthermore she had requested the defendant to let out the premises to any third person with those fittings and fixtures or show the same to the intended buyer and sell the same and adjust the amount thereof in the arrears of rent after deducting the security amount. However, in October, 2020, the plaintiff had chosen to vacate the premises finally taking certain belongings with her and allowed the defendant to dispose of the rest of the items, including electronic items, as it was not feasible to arrange another rental accommodation to keep the said goods nor there was any buyer in the market within her approach and accordingly the defendant had sent his estimated price list of the remaining articles for which the plaintiff had agreed and the defendant adjusted the said amount in the rental arrears and CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.6 of 23 security. Defendant has claimed that he had tried his level best to cooperate with the plaintiff but since she was over-clever, the defendant is entitled to claim his entire arrears of rental as per terms of the lease deed. Defendant has claimed that he is entitled to recover rent upto December, 2020 as plaintiff's chairs were kept by him in safe custody on the roof top under a shade in his building.
9. Plaintiff filed replication (wrongly nomenclatured as rejoinder, which will be correctly read as replication) to the written statement filed by the defendant, denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the contents of the plaint and
10. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 12-10-2022:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.12 Lac (Corrected as Lakh now) alongwith interest from the defendant as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable being vague? OPD
3. Relief.
11.There was a formal order passed regarding clubbing of evidence in the present suit along with the counter-claim bearing no. Counter Claim/40/2021, vide order of this court dated 12-10- 2022.
12. In support of his case, plaintiff examined herself as PW-1, CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.7 of 23 Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Interior Designer as PW-2, Sonu Kumar Singh, Admin Officer, Admin Department, Vijay Sales India Pvt Ltd. as PW-3. Aditya Sharma, Carpenter as PW-4 and Satayendra Yadav as PW-5, who were cross-examined by the Ld counsel for the defendant and PE was closed on 31-07-2024 vide statement made by the plaintiff.
13. On the other hand, defendant examined Ashok Kumar Tiwari, his lawful attorney (SPA holder) as DW-1, who was cross-examined by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff and DE was closed vide his separate statement dated on 18-07-2025.
14. Plaintiff as PW-1 tendered her affidavit of evidence Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(1) Copy of Lease Deed - Ex. CW-1/A (2) Photographs of demised premises at the time of renovation and restructuring - Ex. CW-1/B (3) Copy of legal notice dated 15-12-2020 and its reply dated 26-12-2020 - Ex. CW-1/C and Ex. CW-1/D respectively
15. PW-2, Bhupendra Pratap Singh, S/o Sh. Chandrashekhar Singh, R/o C-21A, Sushant Lok-1,Gate No. 1, Sector-43, Sikanderpur Ghosi (68), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-2/A and relied upon following documents:
i) original invoice dated 15.11.2019 of the drawing fees and project management work Ex. PW2/1.
CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.8 of 23
ii) Bills bearing nos. 547 dated 09.10.2019, no. 502 dated 06.10.2019, no. 559 dated 10.10.2019 & no. 787 dated 10.11.2019 of Gulmohar Interior and bill dated 10.10 amounting to Rs.
16,000/-, bill dated 13.10 amounting to Rs. 20,000/-, bill dated 16.10 amounting to Rs. 20, 150/- issued by Krishna Plywood & Timber related to material of wood, ceiling etc. & layout plan Ex. PW2/2 (colly).
16. PW-3 Sonu Kumar Singh, Admin Officer, Admin Department, Vijay Sales India Pvt. Ltd., Office at-16B/4, Asaf Ali Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, was a summoned witness, who had brought the summoned record i.e. attested copy of invoice No. DGD-S-S114575 dated 09.11.2019 issued by Vijay Sales India Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mahavir Jains Academy and exhibited the same as Ex. PW3/A.
17. PW-4 Sh. Aditya Sharma S/o late Sh. Bhanu Pratap Sharma, R/o P-16, Krishan Vihar, Delhi-110086, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-4/A but did not rely upon any document.
18. PW-5 Satayendra Yadav S/o Sh. Shobha Yadav, R/o P-907, Logix Blossom County, Noida Sector-137, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201305 and having office at 1996A, Pilanji, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi-110003, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW5/A and relied upon 03 bills issued to Rashi Jain, one dated 05.10.2019 amounting to Rs. 18,600/-, second dated 15.10.2019 amounting to Rs. 19,050/- and third dated 10.11.2019 amounting to Rs. 6,600/-, which were exhibited as Ex.
CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.9 of 23 PW5/1 (Colly).
19. DW-1, Ashok Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Sh Pratap Narayan R/o D-1/198, Gali No. 6, 3rd Pusta Sonia Vihar, New Delhi 110094, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW1/A and relied upon following documents:
1. Copy of SPA dated 19-09-2023 - Ex. DW-1/A
2. Copies of e-mail correspondence between the plaintiff and previous attorney holder of defendant - Ex. DW-1/2
3. Screeshots of whatsapp chat between the plaintiff and previous attorney holder of defendant - Mark DW-1/3
4. Calculation sheet for the expenses incurred by the defendant at the request of plaintiff for constructing a washroom - Mark DW-1/4
5. Calculation sheet for expenses incurred on furniture and fixture by the defendant - Mark DW-1/5
6. Affidavit under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in support of email correspondence between the plaintiff and previous attorney holder of defendant - Ex.
DW-1/7
20. I have heard the final arguments addressed by ld. Counsels for the parties, perused written submissions filed by parties and have also perused the judicial file.
21. Perusal of record reveals that the pre-litigation mediation held in the matter, was a non-starter as the defendant did not appear before DLSA, West District and finally the non-starter report dated 20-02-2021 was issued. However, plaintiff has not formally proved the same in his evidence but judicial note of the same is taken as the same is part of record.
CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.10 of 23
22. My issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE No. 1"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.12 Lac (Correctly read as Lakh) alongwith interest from the defendant as alleged?" OPP
23. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
24. The defendant through his SPA has admitted the execution of the registered Lease Deed dated 01.10.2019 in respect of the entire second-floor premises admeasuring approximately 800 sq. ft. at property No. A-11, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, at a monthly rent of ₹64,000/-. He has also admitted that the plaintiff deposited ₹1,28,000/- as interest-free refundable security deposit. He has admitted that the plaintiff carried out interior work and that furniture, fixtures, air-conditioners, fans, TVs, computers, chairs, signboards, cameras, inverters, electric fittings and other articles belonging to the plaintiff remained lying in the premises when the keys were handed over to him/his representative.
25. He has also admitted that the keys of the demised premises were handed over by the plaintiff to him/his agent in October 2020. He has admitted that his authorised agent in India was Ms. Prachi Jain and that she was dealing with the plaintiff on his behalf. He has admitted that communications, including WhatsApp and e-mail, CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.11 of 23 took place between the plaintiff and Ms. Prachi Jain/the defendant. He has admitted that he subsequently re-let the premises to a third party along with the existing furniture and fixtures. He has claimed that he prepared a list/estimate of the value of the articles left in the premises and sent it to the plaintiff. He has admitted that he has neither returned the security deposit of ₹1,28,000/- nor made any payment to the plaintiff towards the cost of the fittings, fixtures and movables left in the premises, claiming instead a right to adjust/forfeit the same against alleged dues. These admissions are spread across paras 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15 and 18 of the Written Statement(reply on merits) and cross- examination of DW-1 dated 01-05-2025.
26. The core issue in the suit is whether the plaintiff validly terminated the lease in April 2020 under Clause 11(e) (force majeure) in light of the complete shutdown of coaching centres during the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby becoming entitled to: (i) a full and immediate refund of the security deposit of ₹1,28,000/- without deductions, and (ii) the return of, or compensation for, her movable fixtures, furniture, electronics and other installations valued at approximately Rs.10 lakhs, which were left on the premises based on the defendant's assurance of payment or sale. Conversely, the defendant argues that the termination was invalid, rent remained payable throughout the lockdown period, the plaintiff's interior modifications amounted to unauthorised CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.12 of 23 structural alterations causing depreciation, and therefore the defendant was justified in re-letting the premises to a third party together with the plaintiff's belongings, assessing their value unilaterally, adjusting them against alleged rent arrears, and retaining the security deposit.
27. In sum, the controversy in the present suit pertains to the validity and effect of the force majeure termination, the ownership and valuation of the movables left behind, the legal implications of the defendant's subsequent re-letting and disposal of those articles, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover ₹12 lakhs with interest.
28.It is important to look at sub-clause (c) of clause 10 and sub- clause (e) of Clause-11 of the admitted lease deed Ex. CW-1/A, which are reproduced below :-
"10 (c) It is also agreed between the parties that on expiry of the Term of the Lease Deed or upon early termination of the same in accordance with this Lease Deed, the Lessee would have the right to remove its equipment and all the underground cables/wires/ducts including air-conditioning, air handling units or other equipment or any other fixtures and/or fittings installed by the Lessee at the Demised Premises and the Lessor will raise no objection to the same."
...............................................................................
CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.13 of 23 "11 (e) In the event of Force Majeure i.e. if the Demised Premises any part thereof be destroyed or damaged by fire, earthquake, tempest, flood, lightning, violence of any army or mob or enemies unfit for the country or by any othe irresistible force so as to render the Demise Premises unfit for the purpose for which the same was let, the Lessee shall have the option to terminate the Lease Deed and the Lessor shall thereupon refund to the Lessee without any deductions, all money deposited either by the way of security, as mentioned under Article 2 above, or in any other manner or form, with the Lessor."
29. From the admitted factual matrix, it stands established that the suit premises was taken on lease by the plaintiff for the specific purpose of operating a coaching centre (educational institution). It is a matter of public record that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government imposed a compulsory shutdown of all coaching centres and educational institutes, thereby rendering the premises incapable of being used for the contracted purpose. In such circumstances, Clause 11(e) of the lease deed qua force majeure becomes operative, as it expressly provides that where the demised premises becomes unfit for use due to any irresistible force, the lessee is entitled to terminate the lease, and upon such termination, the lessor must refund the entire security deposit without any deductions. The language of the clause is mandatory and leaves no scope for contrary interpretation. Thus, the plaintiff CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.14 of 23 was well within its contractual rights in invoking the said force majeure clause and terminating the lease.
30.Further, Clause 10(c) of the lease deed stipulates that upon expiry or early termination of the lease, the lessee retains the unequivocal right to remove its equipment, fixtures, installations, including air- conditioning systems, fittings, wiring, and all other additions made to the premises, and the lessor cannot raise objections thereto. The effect of this clause is two-fold: (i) it reinforces that the contract contemplates lawful early termination, and (ii) it places a corresponding obligation upon the lessor to permit retrieval of the plaintiff's belongings upon termination.
31. The fittings, fixtures and interiors installed by the plaintiff were predominantly removable in nature, as is evident from description in para 7 of the plaint and para 8 affidavit of evidence of PW-1/A, corroborated by the bills proved through PW-2 to PW-5 (false ceiling with grid hardware, gypsum partitions, glass doors, flush doors, sliding & folding partitions, glass windows, safety doors, PVC tiles, electrical works with material, air-conditioners, fans, TVs, computers, cameras, inverters, water dispenser, student chairs and signboards), none of which involved any permanent structural alteration or damage to the building fabric. Also no denial suggestion was given to PW-1 in this regard by the defendant, thereby admitting the said facts. Clause 3(b) of the Lease Deed itself permitted the lessee to carry out non-structural CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.15 of 23 improvements at her own cost, while Clause 10(c) expressly allowed removal of all such items at the time of vacating the premises.
32.Even otherwise, the defendant's own e-mails dated 26.09.2020 and subsequent correspondence (Ex.DW-1/2 colly, filed by the defendant himself) decisively bolster the plaintiff's case, inasmuch as the defendant, through his authorised agent, repeatedly acknowledged the presence of the plaintiff's "office material including all office furniture and fittings, cameras, inverters, electric fitting, books, printers, computers, ACs and other material" in the premises. Plaintiff had assured that "if any party wants to buy, I will sell it to them on agreed rates, otherwise I will vacate the premises and take all my office furniture and belongings with me", and defendant never once claimed that any of these items had become part of the immovable property or could not be removed. By these e-mails the defendant not only admitted the plaintiff's ownership over the entirety of the fittings and fixtures installed by her but also conceded their detachable and removable character.
33.In view of the combined effect of Clauses 10(c) and 11(e), not only was the plaintiff entitled to terminate the lease due to force majeure, but the lessor was also duty-bound to (a) refund the entire security deposit without any deduction, and (b) allow removal of all fittings, fixtures, and equipment installed by the CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.16 of 23 plaintiff.
34.The next point therefore arises for consideration is whether the WhatsApp communication dated 18.04.2020 exchanged between the parties constitutes a valid and enforceable notice of termination of the lease deed Ex. CW-1/A.
35.The WhatsApp message dated 18.04.2020, sent by the plaintiff to mobile number 9910048389 (which is the defendant's own number mentioned in the lease deed itself and admittedly used by Ms. Prachi Jain), clearly conveyed the plaintiff's decision to discontinue the tenancy owing to the prolonged closure of coaching centres during the COVID-19 lockdown and expressly requested the defendant to take back the keys. The receipt and genuineness of this message has been admitted by the defendant's sole witness DW-1 in his cross-examination dated 01-05-2025 , who stated that "the said chat took place between Prachi Jain and Rashi Jain". Since the message was addressed to and received by the defendant's authorised agent, it constitutes valid written notice of termination under Clause 11(e) of the lease deed Ex. CW-1/A, as the pandemic and government-imposed lockdown rendered the premises wholly unfit for the purpose for which they were let. No notice time period is mentioned in force majeure clause 11(e) of the lease deed. The defendant neither objected to nor refuted this notice at any point, ceased raising rent invoices after May 2020, CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.17 of 23 and subsequently re-let the premises to a third party, thereby accepting the termination by conduct.
36. The plaintiff has stated in paragraph No. 4 of the replication (incorrectly titled as rejoinder) that, "......It is submitted that in April 2020 the Plaintiff considering the circumstances and situation prevailing in the entire country, informed the Defendant regarding the discontinuance of the lease agreement and even asked the Defendant to deduct one month rent from the security deposit...." In view of this assertion, the lease stands validly and effectively terminated with effect from 19.05.2020 (after one month of the said whatsapp notice dated 18.04.2020). Even otherwise, in considered opinion of this court, although no time period of termination notice is mentioned in force majeure clause itself, but considering the principles of natural justice, one month notice was essential. Accordingly, one month's rent amounting to ₹64,000/- is liable to be deducted from the total sum claimed by the plaintiff.
37. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of ₹9,99,035/- towards renovation, upgradation, and restructuring of the demised premises as pleaded in paragraph 7 of the plaint and paragraph 8 of the affidavit of evidence Ex. PW-1/A. During her cross- examination dated 14.03.2024, a specific denial suggestion was put to PW-1 regarding the alleged expenditure on renovation, CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.18 of 23 thereby shifting the onus strictly upon the plaintiff to prove the said claim. To discharge this burden, the plaintiff examined PW-2, an interior designer, who proved invoices pertaining to drawing fees and project management services as Ex. PW-2/1 and Ex. PW-2/2 (colly.), showing that a sum of ₹1,73,295/- was paid by the plaintiff towards these works. The plaintiff further examined PW-3, who proved Invoice No. DGD-S-S114575 dated 09.11.2019, exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A, evidencing supply of certain materials to the suit premises valued at ₹45,000/-. PW-4, a carpenter by profession, also stepped into the witness box and deposed through his affidavit Ex. PW-4/A, that he arranged labour and executed wooden works at the premises for 25-30 days, the labour cost being ₹1,00,000/-, paid to him in installments. Although a denial suggestion was put to PW-4 on the ground that no formal invoice or bill was issued, the Court cannot ignore the practical realities that labour in such works is commonly paid on a daily-wage basis without generation of formal documentation. In the absence of rebuttal evidence and considering the overall probabilities and circumstances, the testimony of PW-4 inspires confidence and stands proved. The plaintiff further examined PW-5, who carried out air-conditioning installation and repair works in the premises and proved supporting bills, exhibited as Ex. PW-5/1 (colly.), amounting to ₹44,250/-.
CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.19 of 23
38. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been able to establish and prove expenditure towards renovation and upgrades to the extent of ₹3,62,545/- (i.e., ₹1,73,295 + ₹45,000 + ₹1,00,000 + ₹44,250). However, beyond the amounts substantiated through admissible evidence,the plaintiff has failed to prove the remaining portion of the total claim of expenditure of ₹9,99,035/- .Accordingly, only the amount proved through evidence is allowed, and the balance claim stands unproved and is therefore rejected. In addition, the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the security deposit of ₹1,28,000/-. However, in view of the plaintiff's own admission contained in paragraph 4 of the replication, and as already held in paragraph 36 above, an amount equivalent to one month's rent i.e., ₹64,000/- is liable to be deducted as notice period adjustment. Thus, after such permissible deduction, the refundable security deposit stands reduced to ₹64,000/-.
39. Consequently, the total amount payable to the plaintiff is computed as follows:
Head of Claim Amount
(₹)
Proven expenditure on renovation/interiors = 3,62,545/-
Refundable security deposit (after deduction of = 64,000/-
CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.20 of 23
one month rent)
Total Amount Payable =4,26,545/-
40. Thus, the plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of ₹4,26,545/- from the defendant w.e.f 19-05-2020 (Date of termination of lease deed).
41. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum on the suit amount. This seems a bit excessive and exorbitant. In the case of Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal (2019 SCC OnLine Del 7289), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as follows;
"3..........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the cases of Rajendra Construction Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005) 6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc.v Burn Standard Co. Ltd.,(2006) 11 SCC 181,Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Indag Rubber Ltd.,(2006) 7 SCC 700, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd v. G. Harischandra, (2007) 2 SCC 720 & State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC)..."
42. In the given facts and circumstances, and keeping in view the aforesaid judgment and the prevalent rate of interest, the plaintiff is entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid outstanding amount from 19-05-2020 (Date of termination of lease deed) till actual recovery.
CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.21 of 23
43. Issue no. 1 is accordingly partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 2"2. Whether the suit is not maintainable being vague?" OPD
44. The defendant has taken a vague and unsubstantiated objection that the suit is misconceived and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of alleged vagueness. However, the defendant has failed to lead any evidence whatsoever to substantiate this contention or demonstrate any defect in the pleadings warranting rejection of the plaint. A mere bald plea, unsupported by material, cannot displace a suit that otherwise discloses a clear cause of action. In view of the detailed findings already recorded under Issue No. 1, this objection does not hold merit and stands rejected. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
RELIEF
45. In view of my findings to above issues, the suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for an amount of Rs. ₹4,26,545/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 19-05-2020 till actual realization along with costs of the suit.
CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.22 of 23 Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Digitally signed File be consigned to record room. by ASHUTOSH
KUMAR
ASHUTOSH
Date:
KUMAR 2025.12.08
16:59:00
+0530
(Announced in the open (Ashutosh Kumar)
Court) District Judge (Commercial Court)-1
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
08-12-2025
CS (COMM.) No. 262/2021 Rashi Jain Vs Sushan Pal Soni Page No.23 of 23