* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 26^th February, 2026 Pronounced on: 12 th March, 2026 + RFA 32/2020 & CM APPL. 1735/2020 CORPORATION BANK .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rachit Batra & Mr. Rachit Khandelwal, Advocates.

versus HARVINDER SINGH & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Prateek Chadha, Mr. Vijay Wadhwa, Mr. Arush Malhotra, Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Mr. Aniket Chauhaan and Ms. Surbhi Soni, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Appeal under Section 96 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant, against Judgment dated 13.09.2019, whereby the Suit of the Respondent / Plaintiff for possession of the property in question and for mesne profit at a rate of Rs.200/- per sq. ft., has been decreed.

2. The facts in brief, are that the Appellant, a public sector Bank, had taken the property bearing No.41, Ground Floor, North West Avenue, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi, having carpet area of 1963 sq. ft.

at a rate of Rs.65/- per sq. ft. (Rs.1,27,595/-) on Lease vide Agreement dated 28.12.2005, initially for a period of 05 years. As per the terms of Agreement, in case the Lease was renewed for another 05 years, the rent was to be enhance by 15%. The Lease got renewed by period of 05 years and the rent was enhanced by 15% i.e. Rs.74.70/- per sq. ft.

3. The property had been taken on rent from the owner Mr. Rohit Grover. However, he subsequently, sold the property vide Sale Deeds dated 15.05.2014, to the three Respondents in equal share, who stepped into the shoes of erstwhile owner.

4. The Lease expired on 30.08.2015 and the Plaintiff sent Letters dated 13.03.2015, 06.07.2015 and 17.08.2015 offering to increase rent to Rs.350/- per sq. ft. against the original rent of Rs.65/- per sq. ft. In response to these letters, the Defendant Bank through its Assistant General Manager (AGM), held meeting with the Plaintiff on 13.08.2015 and offered to pay rent @

Rs.285/- per sq. ft. along with the applicable Service Tax.

5. The Defendant Bank had been informed that if it did not accept the offer of Plaintiff, then they may vacate the Suit property. Since the Defendant/Appellant failed to vacate the premises, a Legal Notice dated 15.09.2015 was sent to vacate the property by 30.09.2015, after which the Suit of Possession, Arrears of Rent and mesne profits, was filed by the Plaintiff / Respondent.

6. The Suit was contested by the Appellant/Defendant, wherein the Written Statement, it was stated that Defendant being a public sector Bank, is required to take permission from the competent authority, like Reserve Bank of India, for shifting the Branch and it takes about six months to shift the Branch. The Defendant also claimed that the negotiations were on going between the parties upto December, 2015. When the Defendant found that the Plaintiff was quoting exorbitant rent, negotiations failed and immediately thereafter, the Defendant commenced looking for another premises in the same locality. It was claimed that the delay in vacating the property, was on account of aforesaid circumstances.

7. Plaintiff by way of Replication, reaffirmed the assertions made in the Plaint.

8. During the pendency of the Suit, Defendant/Appellant vacated the suit premises and handed-over the possession on 11.01.2017. The Suit was continued for adjudication on the mesne profits.

9. The Issue was framed on 03.04.2017, which is as follows:

“To what amount, the Plaintiff is entitled from the Defendant on account of rent/damages and for what period?”

10. The Plaintiff, in support of its case, examined PW-1 Sh. Surinder Singh Chadha.

11. Defendant examined DW-1 Sh. Kumar Vivek, its Chief Manager

12. Th Learned Additional District Judge, after consideration of evidence and documents led by the parties, concluded that the Plaintiffs were entitled to mesne profits @ Rs.200/- per sq. ft. (Rs.200/- x 1963 Sq. ft.= Rs.3,92,600/- per month) w.e.f. 01.10.2015 to 11.01.2017 (total