$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 25.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 24.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 24.03.2026 + RFA (COMM) 518/2024 & CM APPL. 70331/2024 SHRI VIRENDER KAUSHIK .....Appellant Through: Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate.

versus SATISH JINDAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhagat Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. By way of the present Appeal, the Appellant seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2024 and 19.09.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „IJ/D‟], passed by the learned District Judge [hereinafter referred to as „LDJ‟], Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby the recovery suit filed by the Respondent (Plaintiff before the LDJ) came to be decreed in his favour in exercise of powers conferred upon the LDJ under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟], holding that the Appellant (Defendant before the LDJ) had made admissions sufficient to warrant a judgment and decree on admission.

2. For the sake of clarity, consistency and ease of reference, the parties in the present appeal shall be referred to in accordance with their respective status before the LDJ.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to comprehend the issues falling for the consideration before this Bench, relevant facts are required to be noticed.

4. The dispute before this Court finds its genesis in the registered lease deed dated 16.05.2014, executed between the parties with respect to the property bearing shop no. 9A at Apra Plaza, Plot No.29, Road No. 44 Pitampura, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „suit property‟], for a fixed period of 5 years, i.e., from 16.05.2014 to 15.05.2019. Under the covenants embodied in the said lease, the parties agreed upon a graduated schedule of rent, the Defendant was obligated to pay a monthly rent at the rate of Rs.55,000/- for the period 16.05.2014 to 15.05.2016, however it was agreed by the parties that no rent would be payable for the period upto 30.06.2014, thereafter the rent stood enhanced to Rs.60,500/- for the period 16.05.2016 to 15.05.2017, further rising to Rs.63,525/- for the period 16.05.2017 to 15.05.2018 and ultimately reaching Rs.66,700/- for the concluding tenure from 16.05.2018 to 15.05.2019.

5. As per the terms of the lease deed, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at the inception of the lease deed towards an interest-free security deposit, subject to the stipulation that the said amount would be refunded to the Defendant upon handing over the peaceful possession of the suit property and upon clearance of all outstanding dues, if any.

6. Additionally, the lease deed also provided that in event the Defendant continues to remain in possession of the suit property beyond the date of termination of the lease deed by efflux of time, i.e., beyond 15.05.2019, the Defendant shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per day for the continued unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property beyond the stipulated term of the Lease Deed.

7. It is not in dispute that possession of the suit property stands handed over to the Plaintiff. However, the precise date of such handing over remains disputed between the parties. On one hand, it is the case of the Defendant that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property was delivered on 10.12.2020; whereas on the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the possession was handed over only on 10.02.2021. Subsequent to the delivery of possession, the Plaintiff instituted the recovery suit and the LDJ vide its order dated 04.11.2022, framed the issues for adjudication, thereby appointing a Local Commissioner for the purpose of recording evidence. Simultaneously, the Plaintiff also preferred an application under Order XIV Rule 5 and Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking the following reliefs:

“In the light of aforesaid facts and circumst