$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 + RC.REV. 327/2018 & CM Appls.28461/2018, 40696/2022 SARADA UKIL SCHOOL OF ART .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Raunak Jain and Mr. Manan Soni, Advs. versus M/S REGAL TOWERS (P) LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidharth Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Indresh Upadhyay, Mr. Brijesh Upadhyay, Mr. Saurabh Kumar and Mr. Mohd. Faraz, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

CM Appl.11360/2025[Seeking modification of order dated 15.01.2025]

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking modification of the order dated 15.01.2025.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Application is in nature of a review.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the condition of the subject premises, as can be seen from the photographs, is not very good and is in a dilapidated condition. It is contended that the contemporaneous lease deeds for other commercial premises cannot be considered given the condition of the subject premises.

3.1 In addition, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has contended Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 327/2018 Page 1 of 13 that the Respondent has obtained the Impugned Order by playing a fraud on the Court, hence user and occupation charges should not be paid.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, at the outset, submits that the Application that has been supplied to him is not the Application which is before the Court and the Application supplied to him is seeking review of the order dated 15.01.2025. However, in the interest of expediency, he would make his submissions. In any event, it is submitted that no ground for review has been made out under the law by the Petitioner since this aspect of the matter has already been dealt with by this Court by its order dated 11.02.2025. Reliance is placed on paragraph 5, 6 and 6.1 of the order dated

11.02.2025 which are extracted below:

“5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner makes two submissions. In the first instance, he submits that the Petitioner is not running a commercial art school but is running a school based on a government grant and the students are nominated by the Government and the fees goes to the Government. Thus, it is contended that the venture is not strictly a commercial venture for the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel seeks to rely upon paragraph 4 of the Eviction Petition to submit that even as per the Respondent, the Petitioner is using the first floor for non-commercial activities.

6. The premises in issue is a property bearing No.66/1, First Floor, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the eviction petition before the learned Trial Court [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”].

6.1 Undisputedly, the subject premises is situated in the centre of the city which has a prime retail value.”

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent seeks to rely upon photographs that have been filed along with the affidavit of compliance dated 22.02.2025 to submit that condition of the subject premises as can be seen from the photographs is not what is stated to be seen in the photographs Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 327/2018 Page 2 of 13 filed by the Petitioner.

4.2 Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the only contention made by the Petitioner is that the subject premises is non-commercial in nature. Relying on the sale deed executed by the Delhi High Court in favour of the Respondent, it is submitted that the document clearly sets out that the subject premises are commercial premises and that the consideration of Rs. 42 crores paid by him in public auction in the year 2008 was for a commercial premises. Reliance is placed upon the provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1958, and it is stated that the document cannot be read as resi