Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 13883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
M/S JAGDISH PRINTERS AND COMPUTERS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
MUKESH CHAND SINGAL & ANR. & ORS. – Respondent
RFA(COMM) 487/2025 | CM APPL. 51512/2025 | CM APPL. 51514/2025 | CM APPL. 58266/2025 | CM APPL. 9092/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Yadav, Asutosh Lohia, Shradha Bhargava, Arjun Bhalla, Harshita Malik, Rishika Jain
For the Respondents: Kuldeep Sehrawat, Monisha Sehrawat
In eviction proceedings, the landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership of the property; proving the landlord-tenant relationship and valid termination of tenancy is sufficient. Furthermore, corporate entities are bound by the financial statements and TDS filings they submit to statutory authorities.
Headnote:The appeal was filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging a trial court's decree for eviction and recovery of rent. A property allotted to a proprietorship firm was leased to a company, which subsequently stopped paying rent. The trial court decreed the suit for eviction, recovery of arrears, and damages based on evidence of rent payments and tenancy termination. The court examined whether the plaintiff was entitled to eviction and recovery of dues. It held that in eviction proceedings, the landlord is not required to establish absolute ownership but only the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and valid termination of tenancy. The court reasoned that a corporate entity is bound by its financial statements and TDS certificates submitted to statutory authorities, and the transfer of business identifiers does not automatically transfer leasehold rights from a paramount lessor. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the eviction suit and trial court's decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments regarding ownership, business transfer, and financial manipulation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. dismissal of additional evidence due to struck-off defence. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. landlord-tenant relationship established without needing proof of ownership. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 5. binding nature of financial statements and tds filings. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 6. affirmation of eviction decree and recovery of dues. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. This is a regular first appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 96 and Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], against the judgment dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS(COMM) No. 81/2023 [‘impugned judgment’] directing a decree of eviction in favour of the plaintiff/Respondent no. 1 in respect of the property bearing no. H-257, DSIIDC Sector-3, Bawana, Delhi, a decree for recovery of arrears of rent along with interest and for damages, etc.
[Factual Matrix]
2. Respondent No. 1, i.e., the plaintiff, has set out its case as under: -
3. Respondent No. 1 was allotted an industrial plot admeasuring 150 sq. meters bearing no. H-257, DSIIDC Sector-3, Bawana, Delhi. The allotment is recorded in the name of Mukesh Chand Singhal, proprietor of Jagdish and Company, which is the sole proprietorship of Respondent No. 1 herein. Respondent No. 1 thereafter built a three-storey building on the said plot [‘suit property’].
4. On 26.04.2004, defendant no. 1/Appellant herein i.e., M/s Jagdish Printers and Computers Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated wherein Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 were the only directors and shareholders.
5. Respondent No. 1 initially let out the suit property to the Appellant on 01.05.2005 at a monthly rent of Rs. 62,500/-. The tenancy was renewed from time to time at different rental amounts. The Appellant lastly paid monthly rent at Rs. 55,000/- and rent was last paid for the month of December, 2022. While continuing to enjoy the use and occupation of the suit property, without any cause, stopped paying rent from 01.01.2023. The payment of rentals is duly evidenced by the TDS1, Tax Deducted at Source certificates issued by the Appellant to Respondent No. 1 for the period 2011-12 to 2022-23 and the financial statements of the Appellant for the corresponding financial years, which duly record payment of rentals to Respondent No. 1.
6. In view of the non-payment of rent, the tenancy was terminated through a legal notice dated 07.08.2023 by Respondent No. 1, which was duly served on the Appellant. Since the Appellant failed to vacate and pay the arrears of rent and damages, Respondent No. 1 instituted the underlying suit seeking to recover possession, a permanent injunction, and arrears of rent and damages. Respondent No. 2 was impleaded in his capacity as the Managing Director of the Appellant for seeking a decree of joint and several liability.
7. Summons were duly served on the Appellant and Respondent No. 2. Appellant elected to not file written statement and accordingly its defence was struck off. Respondent No. 2 filed its written statement, which was taken on record upon payment of costs.
8. Issues were framed by the Trial Court on 26.07.2024. Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 led oral evidence.
9. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Respondent No. 1. A decree for recovery of Rs. 7,15,000/- towards arrears of rent at Rs. 55,000/- per month for the period 01.01.2023 till 31.01.2024 along with pendente lite and future interest at 6% per annum was passed against the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 was also awarded damages at the rate o
