The jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit appellate review of findings from lower courts, requiring trials to resolve disputes over lease agreements.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. CS DJ 394/2020 (Kuldeep Singh Sejwal v. Sunita Kohli) was instituted by the petitioner Kuldeep Singh Sejwal against the respondents, seeking eviction/ejectment of the respondents from the third floor of the property situated at F-213/C, Lado Sarai, New Delhi ("the suit property", hereinafter).

2. The plaint averred that the suit property had been let out to Respondent 1 at Rs.60,000/- per month for carrying out the commercial activities, for which reason the plaint was filed as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It was further asserted, in the plaint, that Respondent 1 was in occupation of the suit property on a month to month basis, and that Respondent 1 was in default of rent payable to the petitioner in respect of the suit property. As a result, the plaint alleged that the petitioner terminated the tenancy of the respondents vide notice dated 20th August 2020, to which the respondents replied on 4th September 2020. Denying the assertions in the reply of the respondents, the plaint, in the circumstance, sought (i) a decree of possession/ejectment in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents with respect to the suit property, (ii) a decree allowing recovery, by the petitioner from the respondent, of Rs.1,20,000/-, towards alleged arrears of rent from the month of August 2020 and (iii) damages/mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month.

3. The respondents, as the defendants in the suit, filed a written statement by way of response to the plaint. It was alleged, in the written statement, that the petitioner and the respondents had intended to execute a Lease Deed dated 1st August 2019, which was signed by Respondent 1 and forwarded to the petitioner for signature and registration. The petitioner, it was alleged, had failed to sign the Lease Deed or to have it registered. The written statement further relied on the fact that the stamp paper, on which the Lease Deed dated 1st August 2019 was executed had, in fact, been purchased by the petitioner on 3rd July 2019. Further, it was pointed out, in terms of the covenants in the Lease Deed, two service agreements dated 4th July 2019 and 1st August 2019, had been executed by the wife of the petitioner. It was also sought to be submitted that, in terms of the covenants in the said service agreements, the petitioner had been receiving payment for providing services to the respondents and that receipt of the said payment was also reflected in the ledger account of the respondents for the period 1st April 2019 till 10th July 2020. These facts, alleged the written statement, indicated that there was consensus ad idem between the petitioner and the respondents regarding the terms of lease, which had been duly reduced to writing in the Lease Deed. In these circumstances, the written statement also pointed out that the respondents had collaterally filed a suit against the petitioner for specific performance, seeking a direction to the petitioner to execute the Lease Deed dated 1st August 2019 and that the said suit was pending.

4. In order to buttress the aforesaid stand, the written statement pointed out that, on 4th July 2019, the respondents had paid, to the petitioner, security of Rs.9 lacs, as per Clause 29¹ of the Lease Deed and that the said payment was already reflected in the ledger account dated 4th July 2019. Reliance was placed by the respondents on Clause 10² of the Lease Deed, which envisaged, termination of the lease without notice only in the event of four months continuous default on the part of the respondents in payment of lease rent.

5. Consequent to filing of the written s