$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(COMM) 327/2025 RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Ateev Mathur &Mr. Ritwik Singh, Advs.

versus PUNJAB AND SIND BANK ....Respondent Through: Ms. Seema Gupta, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

O R D E R

% 20.01.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant – Radhey Shyam Gupta under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, inter alia, assailing the judgment dated 22nd March, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the District Judge (Commercial)-07 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS (COMM.) No. 542/2023 titled, Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab and Sind Bank.

3. TheAppellantwasthePlaintiffandthelandlordofthepropertybearing no. 2612-13, Zere Fasil, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter, ‘Subject Premises’). Vide the impugned judgment, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant.

4. The Appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 22^nd March, 2025 to the extent that it has not granted the mesne profits in terms of what the Appellant had demanded.

5. Vide the impugned judgement, the decree of possession has already been granted and the present appeal is restricted to the mesne profits.

6. Notice was issued in this appeal on 27^th May, 2025 and Ms. Seema Gupta, ld. Counsel has entered appearance for the Respondent bank. Ld.

Counsels have made their submissions on the aspect of mesne profits.

7. In order toproveits claimfor mesneprofits,theAppellanti.e.,landlord has also relied upon the following two lease deeds:

i. Lease deed dated 28^th February, 2020 entered into between the Appellant i.e., landlord and Oriental Bank of Commerce for the premises bearing no. 4136, 1^st floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi where the area is 1932.72 sq. ft. and the rate being Rs. 165/- per sq. ft. per month.

ii. Lease deed dated 31st January, 2023 between one Mrs. Ambika Singhal and Kotak Mahindra Bank for the premises Shop No. 4079, Ground Floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi. In this lease deed, the average annualrentforaperiodof9yearsisstipulatedasRs.55,10,860/-which according to ld. Counsel for the Appellant works out to Rs. 369/- per sq. ft. for the ground floor and 50% of the same would be Rs. 185/- for the basement.

8. In terms of the lease deed of the Oriental Bank of Commerce which is now taken over by Punjab National Bank is concerned, the agreed rate is Rs.165/- per sq. ft.

9. It is the submission of Mr. Gupta, ld. Counsel for the Appellant that, though, the claim of the landlord is for the previous period from 10^th April, 2021, the landlord is willing to restrict the claim of mesne profits from the date of termination i.e., 1^st October, 2022. Reliance is also placed upon the cross-examination of the witness of the Respondent bank who admits that the Kotak Mahindra Bank is only four minutes walk from the subject premises.

10. On behalf of the Respondent Bank, Ms. Seema Gupta, ld. Counsel submits that the cross-examination of the witnesses would, in fact, show that the two premises are not comparable premises to decide mesne profits. The subject premises is located in a gali whereas the other two lease deeds relate to premises on the main road.

11. Ld.Counsel forthe Respondent bank further submitsthatthewitnesses relied upon by the Appellant themselves agree that these premises are not comparable with each other. Ld. Counsel places vehement reliance on the findings of the Trial Court which came to the conclusion that the reasonable mesne profits would be double of the amount of the last paid rent.

12. On the question of any evidence led by the Respondent bank to prove the prevalent market rate, the stand of Ms. Gupta, ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank is that the onus was on the Appellant to prove the same and hence, the Respondent bank did not deem it appropriate to lead any evidence. 13. The Court has heard the matter and has also pe