VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning the judgment dated 21.08.2023 (hereafter ‘the impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Commercial Court in CS (Comm.) No. 123/2023 captioned Kailash Sewani v. M/s Gurprakash Enterprise & Ors. By the impugned judgment, respondent no.1’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter ‘CPC’) was allowed. And, the suit filed by respondent no.1 was decreed.

2. The aforementioned suit was filed by respondent no.1, inter alia, seeking possession of the property bearing no.D-35, Shop No. 4, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024 (hereafter ‘the demised property’), and recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages from the appellants and respondent no.2.

3. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the demised premises and had executed a Lease Deed dated 12.08.2021 (hereafter ‘the Lease Deed’) in favour of appellant no.1 in respect of the demised property for a period of six years commencing from 01.08.2021. In terms of the Lease Deed, the rent for the suit property was fixed at ₹1,50,000/- per month excluding electricity and water charges. The Lease Deed also provided for an annual increase of 5% in the monthly rent.

4. Appellant no.1 is a partnership firm and was arrayed as defendant no.1 in the suit. Appellant nos.2 and 3 are constituent partners of appellant no.1 firm and were arrayed as defendant nos.2 and 4 in the suit. Respondent no.2 claims that he was a partner in appellant no.1 firm but has since resigned. He was arrayed as defendant no.3 in the said suit.

5. Respondent no.1 (hereafter also referred as ‘the plaintiff’) had claimed that the defendants (the appellants and respondent no.2) had failed to pay the rent for the demised premises. Respondent no.1 claimed that the cheques issued for payment of rent for the months of July, August and September, 2022 were dishonored with the noting to the effect that the payment had been stopped by the drawer (defendant no.1/appellant no.1).

6. Respondent no.1 claimed that it had approached the appellants and respondent no.2 on several occasions. However, the appellants had failed and neglected to honour their commitments. In the aforesaid backdrop, respondent no.1 issued a legal notice dated 26.09.2022 terminating the Lease deed of the demised premises. Respondent no.1 demanded possession of the demised premises as well as sought damages, penalty and mesne profit in terms of the Lease Deed. Respondent no.1 further claimed that the appellants and respondent no.2 had deducted tax at source (TDS) – as the cheques issued for payment of rent for the months of July, August, and September, 2022 were for amount of rent less TDS – however, the appellants and respondent no.2 had failed to deposit the same with the Income Tax Authorities.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, respondent no.1 sought a decree for possession of the demised premises as well as recovery of arears of rent at the rate of ₹1,50,000/- per month from July 2020 till termination of the lease. Respondent no.1 also sought recovery of damages/mesne profit for a sum of ₹1,50,000/- at the rate of ₹5,000/- per day in terms of the Lease Deed. Additionally, respondent no.1 sought a decree for recovery of penalty at the rate of ₹1,000/- in terms of the Lease Deed.

8. The appellants (defendant nos.1, 2 and 4) filed a joint written statement resisting the suit. They claimed that the Lease Deed was not validly executed. They also claimed that respondent no.1 had no locus standi to file a suit as he was not the owner of the demised property. Appellant no.3 (defendant no.4) had claimed that he was not liable to pay arrears of rent as he was not the partner at the material time when the Lease Deed was executed and he had not signed the Lease Deed.

9. Respondent No.2 (defendant no.3) claimed that he had resigned as a partner of appellant no.1 firm and therefore, was not liable for payment of rent due from appellant no.1.