Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 1 of 16
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01)
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25
CNR No. DLNT010066672025
Rahul Attal
Son of Shri Shesh Ram Singh
R/o 1822, Outram Lane,
Delhi-110009
...PLAINTIFF
Versus
M/S. ACEX CAREER VISTA LLP
Through its director/Authorized Signatory
Shri Bindhyeshwree Kumar Mishra
S/o. Shri Chhote Lal Mishra
Shop/property No. 82,
Mall Road, GTB Nagar,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009
...DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 23.05.2025
Date on which arguments were concluded : 02.07.2026
Date of pronouncement of order : 04.07.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner of
property bearing No. 82, Mall Road, G.T.B. Nagar, Kingsway
Camp, Delhi.
-- 1 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 2 of 16
It is stated that the plaintiff had let out the ground floor
and first floor of the above property (
hereinafter referred to as
suit property) to the defendant vide registered lease deed dated
15.09.2023 for a period of three years at the monthly rent of Rs.
1,90,000/- + 18% GST per month excluding electricity and water
bills for the first year w.e.f. 1st September 2023 to 31st August
2024. And Rs. 1,99,000/- + 18% GST per month excluding
electricity and water bills for the second year 1st September 2024
to 31st August 2025. And Rs. 2,09,475/- + 18% GST per month
excluding electricity and water bills for the third year 1st
September 2025 to 31st August 2026.
It is stated that the defendant had not paid the rent on time
and in the month of February 2024 the defendant had paid only
Rs. 70,000/- belatedly, out of Rs. 1,90,000/- and had not paid the
remaining amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and 18% GST amount of Rs.
34,200/-. After that defendant has has not made any payment on
account rent or GST till the date of issuance of Notice upon the
defendant. It is stated that on the request of the plaintiff, the
defendant issued the following cheques in advance for the
monthly rent, the details of the cheques are mentioned herein
below :
S.NO. CHEQUE
NUMBER
DATED AMOUNT DRAWN
ON
1. 000006 14.07.2024 2,01,780/- HDFC Bank
SECTOR-26
NOIDA
(U.P)
-- 2 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 3 of 16
2. 000007 14.06.2024 2,01,780/- DO
3. 000008 14.05.2024 2,01,780/- DO
4. 000009 14.04.2024 2,01,780/- DO
5. 000010 14.03.2024 2,01,780/- DO
6. 000011 14.02.2024 2,01,780/- DO
It is further stated that the plaintiff had issued a legal notice
for the dishonored cheques and when the defendant did not make
payment for the said dishonored cheques, the plaintiff filed a
complaint case under section 138 NI Act against the defendant.
The said complaint case bearing no. CCNI Act 29437/2024 is
pending before the Ld. JMFC, North District, Rohini Courts,
Rohini, Delhi.
It is further stated the defendant has neither paid the arrears
of rent, totaling amounting to Rs. 8,26,800/-, details of which are
as under :
i. Rs. 1,20,000/- on account of rent and Rs. 34,200/- on ac-
count of 18% GST total amount of Rs. 1,54,200/- for the
month February 2024.
ii. Rs. 1,90,000/- on account of rent and Rs. 34,200/- on
account of 18% GST total amount of Rs. 2,24,200/- for the
month of March 2024.
iii. Rs. 1,90,000/- on account of rent and Rs. 34,200/- on
account of 18% GST total amount of Rs. 2,24,200/- for the
month of April 2024.
-- 3 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 4 of 16
iv. Rs. 1,90,000/- on account of rent and Rs. 34,200/- on
account of 18% GST total amount of Rs. 1,54,200/- for the
month of May 2024.
It is further stated that the total arrears of rent is Rs. 8,26,800/-
till the date of issuance of notice which have not been paid by the
defendant to the plaintiff nor the defendant has vacated the
tenanted premises. Further the defendant is also liable to make
the payment of electricity bills, water bills etc. It is stated that
considering the conduct of the defendant and as per terms of the
lease deed, the plaintiff does not want to keep the defendant as
his tenant any more and terminates the tenancy of the defendant.
It is stated that at present the prevalent market rent in the
same area similar to tenanted premises is more than Rs.
2,20,000/- p.m. + 18% GST over the said amount per month.
The plaintiff issued legal notice dated 19.05.2024 to the
defendant thereby terminating the monthly tenancy with effect
from the date of notice. Thereafter, plaintiff filed pre-institution
mediation application on 23.10.2024 before District Legal Aid
Services Authority North District Rohini, Delhi. But the
mediation was not successful and hence, non-starter report was
issued by the District Legal Aid Services Authority North
District Rohini on 05.12.2024.
Hence the present suit for possession of rented premises,
recovery of arrears of rent, damages / mesne profits, permanent
-- 4 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 5 of 16
injunction as well as interest along with cost, has been filed by
the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. After filing of the suit, summons of the suit were issued to
the defendant. Summons were served upon defendant through e-
mode on whats-app and E-mail on 10.06.2025. The defendant
put appearance through its Counsel vide order dated 25.09.2025
and filed written statement. However, since the written statement
was filed beyond the outer limit of 120 days, therefore, the same
was not taken on the record and the defence of the defendant was
struck off vide order dated 13.11.2025. The following issues
have been framed/re-framed in the present case as under:
i. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for
possession, as prayed for ? OPP.
ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for
permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP.
iii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for damages /
mesne profits, as prayed for ? OPP.
iv. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit
amount? OPP.
v. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest? If yes, at
what rate and for what period? OPP
vi. Relief
3. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself
as PW1. The PW1 has reiterated the contents of the plaint in his
-- 5 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 6 of 16
evidence, filed through affidavit Ex. PW1/1. The PW1 has also
relied upon relevant documents Ex. PW 1/A to Ex. PW1/D other
than Mark A and Mark B. Thereafter plaintiff’s evidence was
closed on 03.02.2026.
Since the defence of the defendant was struck off, hence
no evidence was led by the defendant.
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld Counsel for the plaintiff,
Ld. Counsel for the defendant and also perused the record.
5. PW Sh. Rahul Attal, has proved the following documents
in support of his case during his examination as PW1 :
1. The copy of the rent agreement is exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/A (Colly) (OSR).
2. The copy of cheques, banker memos, legal notice, postal
receipt and postal track report are marked as Mark-A
(Colly) (from page 64-69 and 77-82).
3. The copy of legal notice is marked as Mark-B.
4. The original speed post receipt and envelop are exhib-
ited as Ex.PW-1/B (Colly).
5. The original non-starter report is exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/C.
6. The original site plan is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/D.
6. My issuewise findings are :
-- 6 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 7 of 16
ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2
i. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for
possession, as prayed for ? OPP.
ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for
permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP.
Both these issues are taken up together, as they are inter-
connected with each other and finding on one issue is having
bearing on another issue. Onus to prove these issues is upon the
plaintiff.
7. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that
the plaintiff has not placed on record the sale deed by virtue of
which, the plaintiff had become owner of the suit property to
demonstrate whether the suit property could have been used for
commercial purpose or else. And no document has been placed
on the record to the fact that the suit property could have been
used for commercial purpose by the plaintiff.
8. Considered.
First of all, for possession of the suit property under the
common law, the plaintiff here in the present suit has to prove the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the
-- 7 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 8 of 16
defendant, secondly the rent of the suit property was more than
Rs. 3,500/- and thirdly the tenancy has duly been terminated.
9. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and claimed
himself to be the owner of suit property consisting of ground
floor and first floor, which was let out to the defendant vide
registered lease deed dated 15.09.2023 for a period of three years
at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,90,000/- + 18% GST per month
excluding electricity and water bills for the first year w.e.f. 1st
September 2023 to 31st August 2024 and Rs. 1,99,000/- + 18%
GST per month excluding electricity and water bills for the
second year 1st September 2024 to 31st August 2025 and Rs.
2,09,475/- + 18% GST per month excluding electricity and water
bills for the third year 1st September 2025 to 31st August 2026.
The said lease deed has been duly registered with the office of
Sub- Registrar VIA, Delhi on 14.09.2023, which has been proved
by PW1 as PW1/A (colly, 07 pages) (OSR).
10. The plaintiff has also proved on record the site plan of the
suit property as Ex. PW1/D, copy of cheques along with bank
memo, legal notice along with postal receipt and postal track
report as Mark A (colly), another copy of legal notice dated
19.05.2024 as Mark B and the original speed post receipt and
envelop as Ex. PW1/B (colly).
-- 8 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 9 of 16
11. The testimony of PW-1 on oath is supported by the
overwhelming number of documents, as discussed above. The
averments made in the said documents have gone unchallenged,
unrebutted. And it is clearly proved through document Ex.
PW1/A i.e. rent deed that there is landlord / tenant relationship
between the plaintiff and the defendant. As per rent deed, the
rent of the suit property is also more than Rs. 3,500/- per month.
12. So far as the aspect of termination of tenancy is concerned,
the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the defendant has not
paid the complete rent for the month of February 2024 and
thereafter for the months of March, April and May, 2024. As no
rent was given by the defendant. Consequently, the legal notice
dated 19.05.2024 Mark B was issued by the plaintiff to the
defendant, thereby terminating the tenancy of the defendant with
immediate effect. Thus, the tenancy has duly been terminated.
13. The defence of the defendant has been struck off, hence
defendant cannot lead his defence as there is no defence on
record of defendant. Further PW1 has not been cross-examined
by the defendant to challenge the deposition of PW1 and
deposition of PW1 remained unchallenged. So far as the
submissions of Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff
has not placed on record the sale deed showing that the property
could have been used for commercial purposes is concerned. It
-- 9 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 10 of 16
has no substance, as the lease deed Ex. PW1/1 itself shows that
the property was rented out for commercial purpose. The
defendant could have also verified the fact whether the suit
property could be used for commercial purpose or not at the time
of entering rent deed. If he has not done so at that time, then he
cannot take benefit of his own inaction. Moreover, in view of
Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the defendant cannot
challenge the landlordship of plaintiff qua suit property.
14. Since, all the averments made by the plaintiff on oath are
supported by the documents as discussed, and the said
averments/documents have gone unrebutted and unchallenged,
there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the
plaintiff/PW-1, supported by cogent material evidence in the
shape of documents, mentioned above. Thus, it has been proved
on the record that the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit property.
Therefore, in view of the evidence and the other material
placed on the record, the defendant, his agents, servants, family
members, attorneys, officials, legal heirs and any other person,
who is claiming to be acting on behalf of the defendant is/are
hereby restrained to create any third party interest in the suit
property or part with possession of suit property and also to
vacate the suit property i.e. entire ground floor and entire first
floor of property bearing no. 82, Mall Road, G.T.B. Nagar,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi (as per site plan Ex. PW1/D) and to hand
-- 10 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 11 of 16
over its peaceful and vacant possession to the plaintiff. Thus,
both these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant.
15. ISSUE NO 4
iv. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit
amount ? OPP.
Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff.
16. The perusal of record reveals that a lease deed dated
15.09.2023 (Ex. PW1/A) was executed between the parties for a
period of three years at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,90,000/- + 18%
GST per month excluding electricity and water bills for the first
year w.e.f. 1st September 2023 to 31st August 2024 and Rs.
1,99,000/- + 18% GST per month excluding electricity and water
bills for the second year 1st September 2024 to 31st August 2025
and Rs. 2,09,475/- + 18% GST per month excluding electricity
and water bills for the third year 1st September 2025 to 31st
August 2026. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant has not
paid the rent as under :
i. Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Thou-
sand Only) on account of rent and Rs. 34,200/- on
account of 18% GST total amount of Rs. 1,54,200/-
for the month February 2024;
-- 11 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 12 of 16
ii. Rs. 1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lac Ninety Thou-
sand Only) on account of rent and Rs. 34,200/- on
account of 18% GST total amount of Rs. 2,24,200/-
for the month of March 2024;
iii. Rs. 1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lac Ninety Thou-
sand Only) on account of rent and Rs. 34,200/- on
account of 18% GST total amount of Rs. 2,24,200/-
for the month of April 2024;
iv. Rs. 1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lac Ninety Thou-
sand Only) on account of rent and Rs. 34,200/- on
account of 18% GST total amount of Rs. 2,24,200/-
for the month of May 2024;
The total arrears of rent of Rs. 8,26,800/- till the date
of issuance of the notice Mark B is due. The averments made
by the plaintiff on these facts have also remained unchallenged.
The amount for that specific period is Rs. 1,54,200/- for the
month February 2024 and Rs. 2,24,200/- for the month(s) of
March, April and May 2024 including 18% GST, thereby making
a total of Rs. 8,26,800/-. Consequently, the plaintiff is held
entitled for recovery of total arrears of rent of Rs. 8,26,800/- for
the months of February 2024 to May 2024. So far as the claim of
electricity and water charges is concerned. The plaintiff has not
placed on record any document of electricity or water charges
due against the defendant. This Court cannot pass the order on
assumptions only. This issue is decided accordingly.
-- 12 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 13 of 16
17. ISSUE NO 3
iii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for damages /
mesne profits, as prayed for ? OPP.
Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff.
18. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the plaintiff
was negligent, as he had not obtained the possession of the suit
property, as was offered by the defendant. He has relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in case titled as
Pushpanjali Devi & Ors. VS. Arjun Rai & Ors (Shriram General
Insurance Co. Ltd.) MAC APP 88/2020, CM APPL. 6699/2020
decide on 28.05.2025.
19. I have gone through the above judgment with utmost
regard, in which the Hon’ble High Court has considered the
principal of contributory negligence, due to which the accident
occurred. However, the said judgment is not applicable to the
facts of the present case, as the same has been passed under
Motor Vehicle Act and it is established law that the appreciation
of evidence under Motor Vehicle Act remained on prima facie
probabilities only.
20. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has claimed the damages /
mesne profits of Rs.2,20,000/- per month for the unauthorized
use and occupation of the suit property. The plaintiff has placed
-- 13 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 14 of 16
on record the lease deed Ex. PW1/A, which shows the monthly
rent of Rs. 1,90,000/- + 18% GST per month excluding
electricity and water bills for the first year w.e.f. 1st September
2023 to 31st August 2024. And Rs. 1,99,000/- + 18% GST per
month excluding electricity and water bills for the second year 1st
September 2024 to 31st August 2025. And Rs. 2,09,475/- + 18%
GST per month excluding electricity and water bills for the third
year 1st September 2025 to 31st August 2026.
Though the plaintiff has claimed damages / mesne profits
of Rs. 2,20,000/- per month, but the plaintiff has not produced
any evidence showing that the property could have fetch the rent
of Rs. 2,20,000/- + GST. However, this Court considering the
document Ex. PW1/A i.e. lease deed, which prescribes the rent
on enhanced rate awards the damages / mesne profits @ Rs.
1,90,000/- + 18% GST per month w.e.f. 1st June 2024 to 31st
August 2024, further Rs.1,99,000/- + 18% GST per month w.e.f.
1st September 2024 to 31st August 2025, and further Rs.
2,09,475/- + 18% GST per month w.e.f. 1st September 2025 till
the date of handing over of the actual, peaceful, physical and
vacant possession of the suit property by the defendant to the
plaintiff. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant.
21. ISSUE NO 5
-- 14 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 15 of 16
v. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest? If yes, at
what rate and for what period? OPP
Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff.
22. So far as this issue is concerned, the plaintiff has not
sought for any relief to this effect in the prayer clause of his
plaint nor he has made any averment in his evidence affidavit Ex.
PW1/A. However, after taking into account the facts of the case
and that the suit property was let out for commercial purpose and
in the interest of justice, this Court awards interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of decree till realization of decretal amount
along with cost of the suit in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendant.
23. ISSUE NO. 6
Relief
In view of my findings on the above issues, the suit of the
plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant with the directions to the defendant, his agents,
servants, family members, attorneys, officials, legal heirs and any
other person, claiming to be acting on behalf of the defendant,
who is/are hereby restrained to create any third party interest in
the suit property and also to vacate the suit property i.e. entire
ground floor and entire first floor of property bearing no. 82,
Mall Road, G.T.B. Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Delhi (as per site
-- 15 of 16 --
CS (Comm) No.: 356/25 Rahul Attal VS. M/s. ACEX Career Vista LLP Page No. 16 of 16
plan Ex. PW1/D) and to hand over its peaceful and vacant
possession to the plaintiff and also to pay the plaintiff the total
arrears of rent of the suit property of Rs. 8,26,800/- for the
months of February 2024 to May 2024.
The defendant has also to pay damages / mesne profits @
Rs. 1,90,000/- + 18% GST per month w.e.f. 1st June 2024 to 31st
August 2024, further Rs.1,99,000/- + 18% GST per month w.e.f.
1st September 2024 to 31st August 2025, and further Rs.
2,09,475/- + 18% GST per month w.e.f. 1st September 2025 till
the date of handing over of the actual, peaceful, physical and
vacant possession of the suit property by the defendant to the
plaintiff along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
decree till realization of decretal amount. Suit is decreed with
cost.
Decree be prepared after making the proportionate court
fee on the decretal amount.
File be consigned to record room after necessary
compliance.
Announced in open court
on 04th day of July, 2026.
(Jagdish Kumar)
District Judge-Commercial Court-01
North District, Rohini Court, Delhi
-- 16 of 16 --