$~46

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 12^th December, 2025

Uploaded on: 16^th December, 2025

+ RFA(COMM) 702/2025, CM APPL. 78523/2025, CM APPL.

78524/2025 & CM APPL. 78525/2025

MOHD. GUDDU .....APPELLANT

Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Khandelwal, Mr.

Shubham Agarwal, Ms. Vaishali Sharma & Mr. Himanshu Rajpurohit, Advs. along with Appellant present in

person. versus

GANGA DEVI AND ANR .....RESPONDENTS

Through: Appearance not given.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 78524/2025 & CM APPL. 78525/2025 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.

RFA(COMM) 702/2025, CM APPL. 78523/2025 (for stay)

3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter ‘Defendant’) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, inter alia, assailing the impugned order and decree dated 10^th November, 2025 passed by the ld. District Judge (Commercial-06), South East, Saket Court, Delhi in CS (COMM) 576/2025 titled ‘Ganga Devi and Anr. v. Mohd.

Guddu’ (hereinafter, ‘impugned order and decree’)

4. Vide the impugned order and decree, a decree of possession has been

passed against the Appellant-Defendant (hereinafter, ‘Defendant’).

5. A brief background of the Defendant’s case is that, the suit premises being Shop No. 264 along with Fad/thiya (vacant space behind shop to display the fruits for sale) at New Sabzi Mandi, Okhla, New Delhi-110020 (hereinafter, ‘suit premises’) was given on rent to the Defendant in 2004 by the Respondents/Plaintiffs (hereinafter, ‘Plaintiffs’).

6. A suit for perpetual injunction was filed by the Defendant titled ‘Mohd. Guddu v. Vasdev Wadhwa’ being CS SCJ 157/2025 (hereinafter, ‘suit for perpetual injunction’).

7. At the time of filing of the suit for perpetual injunction, the Defendant claims have been paying rent of Rs.8,000/- for the shop and Rs.15,000/- for the Fad/thiya, exclusive of electricity charges.

8. The Defendant is stated to have been irregular in his payment of the occupation charges and when the Plaintiff asked for payment of the same, the Defendant filed a suit for perpetual injunction.

9. Upon receiving the summons of the suit for perpetual injunction, filed by the Defendant, notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued by Plaintiff No.1. Thereafter, CS (COMM) 576/2025 titled Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Arora Scooter House was filed seeking possession as also use and occupation charges etc., The present appeal arises from this suit.

10. According to the plaint, the Plaintiff No.1 – Smt. Ganga Devi is the absolute owner of the suit premises. The suit premises consists of a basement, ground floor and mezzanine floor and backside area known as Fad/thiya. The Plaintiff No.2 – Sh. Vasudev Vadhwa is stated to be holding a license for the suit premises given by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee.

11. As per the plaint, the Defendant had taken the suit premises on rent and was paying use and occupation charges of the suit premises at Rs.40,000/- till 31^st December, 2023. From January, 2024, the use and occupation charges were enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per month till the end of June, 2024.

12. The prayers in the suit are as under:

“A. To pass a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant directing the defendant to vacate the suit property i.e. basement and back side open area i.e “Fad/Thiya of the shop no 264, Okhla Subzi Mandi, New Delhi, in the interest of justice. B. To pass a decree of recovery of arrears of use and occupation of charges of Rs.4,40,000/-in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant along with pendent-lite and future interest @24% p.a w.e.f 01-07-

2024 till its realisation, in the interest of justice.

C. To pass a decree of recovery of unauthorised use and occupation charges @ Rs.2500/- per day w.e.