Summary judgment is not appropriate in cases with substantial factual disputes requiring evidentiary hearing; admissions in documents alone do not justify bypassing trial.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant [Defendant before the Commercial Court] assails the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2024 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Judgment'] passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'Commercial Court'], in CS (COMM.) No. 167/2023 captioned Dinesh Dayal and Ors. v. Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. , whereby the suit filed by the Respondents [Plaintiffs before the Commercial Court] was decreed under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'] as applicable to commercial disputes, in favour of the Respondents, for a sum of Rs.12,97,540/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the filing of the suit till realization of amount along with costs.

2. At the outset, it would be apposite to notice the factual background giving rise to the present appeal.

3. The Appellant is a company engaged in the business of tourism and handicrafts and was inducted as a tenant in respect of a commercial premises situated at Flat No. 1-E, First Floor, DCM Building, 16, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, along with parking space No. LB-20. The tenancy was governed by a registered lease deed dated 29.06.2011 executed between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 for a period of nine years.

4. Following previous litigation between the parties regarding arrears of rent and service tax, a civil suit was instituted in the year 2014, which was subsequently resolved through mediation. Pursuant thereto, a Supplementary Lease Deed dated 08.07.2015 was executed, reducing the monthly rent payable by the Appellant. On the same date, a separate Consultancy Agreement was executed between the Appellant and Respondent No.2, whereunder monthly consultancy charges were agreed to be paid. By way of a letter dated 22.06.2015, the parties expressly agreed that the Supplementary Lease Deed and the Consultancy Agreement would be co-terminus. Effective from January 2017, the Appellant began remitting rent to Respondent No. 3 (HUF) upon the request of Respondent No. 1, while consultancy charges continued to be paid to Respondent No. 2.

5. It is not in dispute that the stipulated term under the Supplementary Lease Deed and the Consultancy Agreement expired on 30.06.2018. According to the Respondents, the Appellant nevertheless continued in possession of the premises of the Respondents and continued to discharge its obligations to pay rent and the consultancy charges. The Appellant, on the other hand, disputes the subsistence of the agreements beyond their stipulated term. It is admitted that rent was paid till 31.03.2020 and consultancy charges till 29.02.2020.

6. Upon the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Appellant, by letter dated 23.04.2020, sought waiver of rent with effect from 01.04.2020, contending that the premises had become unusable. This request was declined by Respondent No.1 by reply dated 26.05.2020, calling upon the Appellant to continue payment of rent. Thereafter, by letter dated 09.06.2020, the Appellant expressed its intention to vacate the premises and offered to hand over possession, while seeking refund of the security deposit. The Respondents, however, insisted that possession would be accepted only upon restoration of the premises to its original condition, giving rise to a dispute as to the Appellant's continuing liability to pay rent.

7. The Appellant thereafter issued a notice dated 25.0