Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
SHRI NEERAJ AGGARWAL – Appellant
Versus
SH GAURAV PUNJ & ANR. – Respondent
RFA(COMM) 425/2025 | CM APPL. 45370/2025 | CM APPL. 59561/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sonal Anand, Mr. Aayush Sai, Ms. Surbhi Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Gandhi
The court upheld the summary judgment for possession, reiterating that previous termination notices were valid and maintaining that the tenant's defenses lacked credibility, reflecting the purpose of efficient commercial adjudication.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 and Order XIII-A - Summary judgment for recovery of possession in favor of plaintiffs - Validity of notices terminating tenancy and landlord-tenant relationship established in earlier suit - Tenant failed to present a plausible defense - No grounds for res judicata or limitation were established. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 24, 35)
(B) Summary Judgment - Under Order XIII-A, courts can summarily decide cases where there is no genuine dispute warranting trial, streamlining commercial litigation and promoting judicial efficiency. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a summary judgment granted to plaintiffs for possession of suit property, asserting a valid landlord-tenant relationship as established in previous litigation. Notices terminating tenancy were upheld despite defendant's objections. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no merit in the defendant's arguments related to tenancy termination or the applicability of res judicata and limitation. (Paras 34, 35)
Issues: Whether the judgment permitting summary possession was sustainable, considering challenges to tenancy termination and prior judgment applicability. (Paras 4, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court's findings regarding the validity of termination notices and the conclusion of no real prospect of defense upheld the summary judgment. (Paras 48, 49)
Result: Appeal dismissed, affirming the trial court's decree for recovery of possession.
1. The present Regular First Appeal1 has been preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act , 20152, read with Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 19083, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.20254 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi5, in CS (COMM) No. 175/2023, titled Gaurav Punj and Another v. Neeraj Aggarwal.
2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court allowed the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ application filed under Order XIII-A of the CPC (as amended by the CC Act) for summary judgment in respect of relief (a) of the Plaint, namely recovery of possession. The learned Trial Court consequently passed a decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant and directed that the Defendant shall vacate the suit property i.e., the basement portion of Punj House Annexe, situated at Plot Nos. 4 and 5 (Rear Side Portion), M-13, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi6, admeasuring 1,353.42 sq. ft. together with the staircase area from entry No. 1 measuring 76.86 sq. ft., which is in the Defendant/Appellant’s tenancy. The learned Trial Court further directed that this vacation of the suit property shall take place immediately after the expiry of the statutory period for filing an appeal.
3. While passing the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court clarified that, with respect to the remaining reliefs claimed in the suit, the Plaintiffs/Respondents shall be required to prove their case in accordance with law during the course of trial.
4. In the present appeal, the controversy is confined to a limited issue; whether the Impugned Judgment, whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ application under Order XIII-A of the CPC and passed a summary judgment only in respect of recovery of possession of the suit property against the Defendant/Appellant, is legally sustainable and in consonance with the law.
5. For the sake of convenience, uniformity, and consistency, the parties in the present Appeal shall hereinafter be referred to according to their respective ranks before the learned Trial Court.
BRIEF FACTS:
6. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are set out hereunder:
(a) The present dispute pertains to the suit property, a portion of which is under the occupation of the Defendant. The said property forms part of a larger estate owned by various members of the Punj family.
(b) Pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in earlier proceedings, the disputes among the family members of the Plaintiffs were referred to mediation under the aegis of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur (Retd.). The mediation culminated in a Memorandum of Family (Mediation) Settlement, which was duly approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.08.2016. The said settlement delineated the ownership, possession, and enjoyment of different portions of the family estate among various members, including the Plaintiffs.
(c) Under the aforesaid settlement, the suit property came to the share of the Plaintiffs. Prior to filing the present suit, the Plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest had issued several demand notices in the years 2009, 2012, and 2017, calling upon the Defendant to pay rent/licence fee for use and occupation of the suit property, and also intimating termination of the licence/lease. Upon the Defendant’s continued default in payment, the Plaintiffs’ predecessor, i.e., the father of Plaintiff No. 1, instituted CS (COMM) No. 42/2021 on 05.02.2021 before the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-03), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi7, seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and permanent as well as mandatory injunctions against the Defendant and his brother. The Defendant filed a Counterclaim seeking recovery of possession, while his brother was proceeded ex parte.
