$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(COMM) 90/2026 & CM APPL. 9030/2026 DR. T. CHANDAN .....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Kunal Kher and Mr. Manuj Gautam, Advs.

versus POONAM BHARDWAJ .....RESPONDENT Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026 CM APPL. 9029/2026 (Exemption

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

RFA(COMM) 90/2026

3. Based on the unregistered lease deed dated 1^st January 2014 viz. Exhibit PW-1/4, the respondent/plaintiff initiated a suit for possession. The prayer in the plaint reads thus:

“In view of the submissions made above, it is most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

a) Grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, his associates, agents, assigns and representatives thereby restraining him from alienating, selling, mortgaging or creating third party interest in the suit property i.e. 91/A, First Floor Sarai Jullena, New Delhi (specifically shown as red in the site plan), till the disposal of the present suit.

b) Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

4. The suit came to be decreed vide the judgment and decree under challenge dated 7^th August 2025, wherein the appellant/defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 23,39,659/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with effect from July 2020 till realisation. The appellant is also directed to pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit.

5. The fact remains that based on the rival pleadings, the learned Commercial Court has framed the issues, which reads thus:

“(1) Whether the plaintiff was the landlord qua the defendant in respect of the suit property and whether she has the locus standi to file the suit?

OPP (2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPD (3) Whether the unregistered lease deed dated 01.01.2014 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant? OPP (4) Whether the defendant had handed over the possession of the premises to the plaintiff in December 2020 and whether the possession receipt dated 06.01.2021 was executed? OPD (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.28,13,136/- from the defendant with pendente-lite and future interest as claimed? OPP (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- or any lesser sum towards damages on account of repairing cost of the property and the vehicle as claimed? OPP (7) Relief.”

6. The issue of possession was framed as issue no. 4 dealing with handing over of possession by the defendant, as pleaded. The said issue was answered against the appellant/defendant.

7. In such an eventuality, it is the case of the appellant/defendant that apart from the suit claimed to the extent of possession being not appreciated, the evidence brought on record by the respondent/plaintiff has not proved the documents on the basis of which the suit claim is being answered against the appellant/defendant.

8. According to the appellant, once the respondent/plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the property under a gift deed, which was never produced on record, there was no necessity for the appellant to get the acknowledgement from her husband, who was the erstwhile landlord, and to whom the payments of rent were made based on the 2000 Agreement.

9. He would further claim that the issue as regards the possession being surrendered to the respondent, by virtue of surrendering of key and executing a possession receipt to that effect, has been misinterpreted by the learned Commercial Court to the benefit of the respondent.

10. That being so, issue notice to the respondent through all permissible modes, returnable on 25^th May 2026.

CM APPL. 9028/2026 (stay

11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant prays for grant of interim relief.

12. Since the decree under challenge is a money decree, in view of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of