RFA 634/2026 Page 1 of 20

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 29

th

July, 2026

Pronounced on: 22

nd

September, 2026

Uploaded on : 22

nd

September, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010292852026

+ RFA 634/2026, CM APPL. 42743/2026

GIRISH KUMAR JAIN

S/O LATE SH . R.K JAIN,

R/O 7A/2 , RAJPUR ROAD ,

DELHI-110054

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Raghav Bansal and Mr. Suraj

Jain, Advs.

versus

UCO BANK

SERVICE THROUGH

VERSUS

GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE,

SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. I. S. Chauhan and Ms. Nisha

Chauhan, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the Appellant against the

Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2026, passed by the learned District

Judge, Delhi in CS DJ No. 614969/16, whereby the Suit for recovery of Rs.

RFA 634/2026 Page 2 of 20

9,94,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Only) on account of

damages at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per month with interest, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are, that the Plaintiff, Girish Kumar Jain is

the owner and landlord of premises bearing No. GF-3 on Plot No. B-3/4, Dr.

Mukherjee Nagar, Commercial Complex, Delhi, measuring 379 sq. ft.

(hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). He let out the suit property to

the Defendant, UCO Bank with effect from 12.03.1994, at a monthly rent of

Rs. 3,400/- per month, exclusive of maintenance charges, electricity charges

and water charges, for a period of five years. The lease period was extended

for a further period of five years at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,250/- per month,

exclusive of other charges with effect from 12.03.1999, vide Lease Deed

dated 25.03.1998.

3. The Defendant was required to pay electricity charges, as per the

meter reading directly to the concerned authority. At the time of creation of

the tenancy, an electricity meter was provided to the Defendant. According

to the Plaintiff, the meter was burnt due the use of excessive electrical load

by the Defendant, following which the Defendant started drawing electricity

directly, resulting in a theft bill being raised by NDPL. No fresh meter was

installed, thereafter.

4. The electricity supply to the suit property was disconnected by NDPL

on 09.03.2006, following the detection of electricity theft. The Plaintiff sent

various letters to the Defendant on 19.12.2006, 10.01.2007, 08.02.2007,

10.04.2007 and 06.08.2008. He also sent legal Notice through his counsel on

03.06.2006, 25.01.2007 and 01.10.2007.

RFA 634/2026 Page 3 of 20

5. The Defendant sent replies on 07.02.2007 and 26.02.2007, while the

counsel for the Plaintiff sent rejoinders on 22.02.2007 and 15.03.2007.

These communications related, inter alia, to the electricity connection and

the Plaintiff's grievance regarding the inability to use or re-let the suit

property.

6. According to the Plaintiff, on account of the Defendant's failure to

restore the electricity connection, the suit property became incapable of

being used or re-let, and the Defendant was liable for the loss suffered by

him on that account. The Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 03.06.2006, to

the Defendant.

7. The Plaintiff had filed a Suit bearing No. 249/1999 for possession,

recovery of rent and mesne profits against the Defendant, before the court of

the learned Civil Judge, Delhi. The Plaintiff had also filed a Suit for

Mandatory Injunction against the Defendant, before the court of the learned

Civil Judge, Delhi.

8. During the pendency of Suit No. 249/1999, the Defendant vacated the

suit property and moved an Application in the said court, for handing over

the keys of the suit property to the Plaintiff. Initially, the Plaintiff refused to

accept the keys from the Defendant on the ground that during the tenancy

period, the electricity meters had got burnt and the Defendant had thereafter,

connected the electricity directly with the electricity supply of NDPL. A

case of theft of electricity had also been registered by NDPL against the

Defendant, which was pending before the court of learned ASJ, Special

Electricity Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

RFA 634/2026 Page 4 of 20

9. The Plaintiff accepted the keys under protest and took possession of

the suit property, on 25.01.2008. According to the Plaintiff, despite having

obtained possession of the suit property, he could not have the electricity

supply restored and, consequently, was unable either to use or re-let the suit

property.

10. Further, it was averred that the suit property could easily fetch Rs.

24,000/- per month as rent, and the Plaintiff was entitled to damages at the

rate of Rs. 24,000/- per month. w.e.f. 25.01.2008.

11. The suit property was ultimately let out by the Plaintiff to Rajesh

Kumar Sharma on 15.04.2013, at a monthly rent of Rs. 27,000/-, after the

Plaintiff arranged electricity for the suit property by obtaining supply from

another premises owned by him, where the electricity meter was installed in

the name of M/s G.B.S. Chits (P) Ltd., Company of the Plaintiff.

12. The Plaintiff had earlier moved an Application under Order VI Rule

17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the Suit pending

before the court of the learned Civil Judge, so as to seek the relief of

damages. However, the said Application was ultimately withdrawn by the

Plaintiff, who sought liberty to file a fresh Suit with regard to the aforesaid

damages, which was allowed vide Order dated 27.05.2013.

13. However, the Plaintiff has restricted his claim to damages, for a

period of three years, amounting to Rs. 8,64,000/-. The Plaintiff also

claimed interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the said damages

amounting to Rs. 1,30,000/-, thereby making the total claim of Rs. 9,94,000/-

14. The Defendant, UCO Bank, in its Written Statement asserted that the

Plaintiff had concealed material facts and that the Suit was without a cause

RFA 634/2026 Page 5 of 20

of action. The Defendant further asserted that the Suit was hopelessly barred

by limitation and was also liable to be dismissed under Order II Rule 2 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

15. The Defendant further claimed that the Plaintiff had already availed

his remedy by filing Suit No. 249/1999, titled G.K. Jain v. UCO Bank,

seeking possession, recovery of rent and mesne profits, which was decreed

in favour of the Plaintiff and the decretal amount was paid by the

Defendant, in Execution proceedings. It was asserted that, prior to the

institution of the present Suit, the Plaintiff had instituted another Suit against

the Defendant, which was subsequently withdrawn, without obtaining any

liberty to institute a fresh Suit. The Defendant also referred to Civil Suit No.

112/2009, titled G.K. Jain v. NDPL, wherein the present Defendant had been

impleaded as Defendant No. 2.

16. On merits, the Defendant denied that the Plaintiff was the owner of

the suit property and stated that there was no privity of contract between the

parties with regard to the suit property. The Defendant, however, admitted

that the premises were let out on 12.03.1994 at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,400/-,

and that the rent was subsequently increased, as per the Lease Deed.

17. The Defendant stated that the electricity connection was used

through a sub-meter provided by the Plaintiff and the consumption charges

were paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff from time to time, but the

Plaintiff had failed to deposit the said amount with NDPL. It was contended

that no theft was ever committed, by the Defendant.

18. Regarding vacation of the suit property, the Defendant stated that it

had sought to vacate the premises, on 31.08.2006 and had handed over the

RFA 634/2026 Page 6 of 20

keys to the Plaintiff, who refused to accept the same. Thereafter, the

Defendant deposited the keys in the court of the learned Civil Judge, and the

Plaintiff was informed and requested to collect the keys from the court

directly. The Plaintiff ultimately accepted the keys and took possession of

the suit property, on 25.01.2008.

19. In the Replication, the Plaintiff denied the averments made in the

Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the Plaint. It was

specifically stated that the previous Suit was totally different and the cause

of action for the present Suit arose only when the Defendant vacated the suit

property without electricity.

20. It was denied that the Defendant had ever paid the electricity bills

either to the Plaintiff or to NDPL. The Plaintiff stated that the Defendant

had committed theft of electricity and a case of theft had been registered

against the Defendant. It was also the Plaintiff's case that the premises

comprised of four shops, let out by four different landlords; the Plaintiff

being one of them, and that the Defendant had combined all four shops and

used excessive electrical load, on account of which the electricity meters

were burnt.

21. The learned Trial Court framed the following Issues, on 07.04.2014:

i. Whether the Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the Suit?

(OPD)

ii. Whether the Suit is liable to be dismissed as barred under

Order II Rule 2 CPC? (OPD)

iii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.

9,94,000/- on account of damages? (OPP)

RFA 634/2026 Page 7 of 20

iv. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate

and for what period? (OPP)

v. Relief.

22. PW-1, Girish Kumar Jain, Plaintiff tendered his evidence by way of

affidavit, Ex. PW-1/A, in which he reiterated the averments of the Plaint. He

placed reliance on, inter alia, the House Tax Receipt as Ex. PW-1/1, the

Lease Deed as Ex. PW-1/2, the electricity theft bill raised by NDPL as Ex.

PW-1/3, the Legal Notice as Ex. PW-1/4, the Court Notice dated 07.12.2012

as Ex. PW-1/5, the Order of the learned Civil Judge as Ex. PW-1/6, the

Lease Deed dated 15.04.2013 in favour of Rajesh Kumar Sharma, as Ex.

PW-1/7; letters sent to the Defendant as Ex. PW-1/8 to Ex. PW-1/12, A.D.

Cards as Ex. PW-1/13 to Ex. PW-1/15; Legal Notices, postal receipts and

A.D. Cards as Ex. PW-1/16 to Ex. PW-1/22, the Defendant's replies, the

Plaintiff's rejoinders and A.D. Cards as Ex. PW-1/23 to Ex. PW-1/28; and

the Order dated 27.05.2013 of the learned Civil Judge, as Ex. PW-1/29.

23. PW-2, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, deposed that he was inducted as a

tenant in the suit property, vide Lease Deed dated 15.04.2013, Ex. PW-1/7.

His cross-examination was deferred at the request of the proxy counsel for

the Defendant, as the main counsel was not available. Thereafter, no cross-

examination of PW-2 was conducted by the Defendant.

24. PW-3, Tarun Kumar, Junior Officer, TPDDL, produced

photocopies of the theft bill, Inspection Report dated 09.03.2006 and Action

Report, as Mark A, Mark B and Mark C, respectively.

RFA 634/2026 Page 8 of 20

25. PW-3A S.S. Negi, Assistant, TPDDL, produced the certified copy

of the record pertaining to K. No. 31400130553, as Ex. PW-3/1A.

26. PW-4, Sh. Shyam Singh, Naib Nazir, posted in the Court of the

learned ASJ, Rohini Courts, produced the original theft bill dated

27.03.2006 as Ex. PW-4/A.

27. PW-4A, Satish Kumar, Junior Assistant, Record Room (Civil),

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, produced the record of Suit No. 301/2014, titled

Girish Kumar Jain v. NDPL, along with the statement of Sunil Kumar,

Senior Manager, Legal, TPDDL, dated 18.01.2016 and the Order dated

18.01.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Central, Tis

Hazari Courts, Ex. PW-4/1 (Colly.). The Defendant did not cross-examine

this witness.

28. PW-5, Dinesh Kumar, Customer Service Manager, TPDDL,

produced the documents relating to the old connection as Mark PW-5/A and

Mark PW-5/B, documents relating to the new connection as Mark PW-5/C

(Colly.), the Payment Deposit Receipt as Ex. PW-5/1, the demand letter as

Ex. PW-5/2 and the meter installation receipt as Ex. PW-5/3. The Defendant

did not cross-examine this witness.

29. The Defendant examined DW-1, Chestha Dhawan, Branch

Head/Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, who

tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. DW-1/A, in which the

contentions of the Written Statement were reiterated. She relied upon the

certified copy of the judgment dated 24.08.2013 in Suit No. 249/1999, titled

as G.K. Jain versus UCO Bank as Ex. DW-1/2, and the certified copy of the

RFA 634/2026 Page 9 of 20

Order and statement dated 31.03.2017 in Execution Petition No. 95780/16 as

Ex. DW-1/3 and the common Board Resolution, as Mark A.

30. The Trial Court, vide the impugned Judgment dated 13.02.2026, held

that the Defendant had failed to establish that the Suit was barred under

Order II Rule 2 CPC or that the Plaintiff had no cause of action. On the

question of damages, however, the learned Trial Court noted that the

Plaintiff had obtained possession of the suit property on 25.01.2008, but had

re-let the same only on 15.04.2013, after arranging electricity from another

premises owned by him. No explanation had been furnished as to why the

same arrangement for obtaining electricity, could not have been made at an

earlier stage and concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that the

suit property could not be let out, solely on account of the non-availability of

electricity. The Suit was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

31. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2026,

the Appellant, Girish Kumar Jain has preferred the present Appeal.

32. The grounds of challenge are that the learned Trial Court passed the

impugned Judgment without considering the material facts available on

record and the findings are based on wrong assumptions.

33. It has not been appreciated that due to the direct theft of electricity

committed by the officials of the Respondent Bank, the electricity in the suit

property was disconnected w.e.f. 09.03.2006 and as a consequence thereof,

the Appellant could not let out the suit property to any tenant.

34. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has erred in holding

that the Appellant has not given any explanation as to why he could not have

made provision for supply of electricity to the suit property from another

RFA 634/2026 Page 10 of 20

meter, at an earlier point of time. In this regard, it is stated that the other

premises belonged to M/s G.B.S. Chits (P) Ltd., in which the Appellant is

one of the Directors, and the electricity in the said premises was installed

only in the year 2007. The Appellant could not supply electricity from one

premises to another without the permission of NDPL and the power load

was increased only in the year 2014. It is contended that the Respondent

itself never raised any such defence and there was nothing on record to

suggest that the Appellant could have supplied electricity from the other

premises at any earlier point of time.

35. The Appellant has also asserted that the judgments on which the

learned Trial Court has relied, are distinguishable as they pertain to

government leasehold properties allotted by DDA and other government

authorities, which are distinct from privately owned properties, such as the

suit property.

36. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned judgement, be set aside.

Submissions heard and the record perused.

37. The suit property, which had been let out by the Appellant/Plaintiff to

the Respondent/Defendant Bank, vide Lease Deed dated 25.03.1998. The

electricity connection was admittedly disconnected by the NDPL on

09.03.2006, on the ground of direct theft of electricity. The Respondent

Bank thereafter, vacated the suit property and the Appellant took possession

thereof, on 25.01.2008. The question is whether the absence of electricity

thereafter, rendered the suit property incapable of being re-let, so as to

entitle the Appellant to recover the alleged loss of rent, from the

RFA 634/2026 Page 11 of 20

Respondent, until 15.04.2013, when the Appellant, arranged supply of

electricity from another premises owned by his Company, being M/s G.B.S.

Chits (P) Ltd., and let it out to one Rajesh Kumar Sharma, on a monthly

rent of Rs. 27,000/-.

38. The Appellant instituted the present Suit on 10.07.2013, claiming

damages at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per month for the intervening three-year

period, attributing the non-letting out of the suit property to the non-

availability of electricity, which, in turn, was attributed to the theft of

electricity committed by the Respondent.

39. In the said backdrop, the following questions arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the suit property could not be let out,

throughout the period of claim, on account of any factor

beyond the Appellant's own control; and

(ii) Whether the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per month, at which

damages have been claimed, have been proved.

I. Whether the Suit Property could not be let out, due to Electricity

disconnection on account of of Electricity Theft:

40. Before, considering the facts, it would be pertinent to first consider

the principles for assessing the damages.

41. The Appellant, in paragraph 7 of the Plaint, has made the following

averment, which was reiterated on oath, in paragraph 8 of the Affidavit of

Evidence Ex. PW-1/A:

"…However, it is submitted that only on 15.04.2013 the

plaintiff could let out the premises to a tenant @ Rs.27,000/-

RFA 634/2026 Page 12 of 20

per month due to the reason that the plaintiff has started

supplying the electricity to the tenanted premises from the

other premises which are also owned by the plaintiff and

electricity meter is lying installed in the name of M/s.G.B.S.

Chits (P) Ltd. which is one of the Companies of the

plaintiff."

42. In the light of the aforesaid admitted position, the burden was on the

Appellant, in terms of the Explanation to Section 73 as expounded in

Murlidhar Chiranjilal (supra) and M. Lachia Setty (supra), to demonstrate

by cogent evidence, that the means of remedying the inconvenience, did

not exist during the period from 25.01.2008 to 15.04.2013.

43. Explanation to Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,

encapsulates a principle applicable to a claim for damages. It provides:

"S. 73. Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach

of contract.—When a contract has been broken, the party

who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the

party who has broken the contract, compensation for any

loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally

arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or

which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be

likely to result from the breach of it.

Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and

indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.

Compensation for failure to discharge obligation

resembling those created by contract.—When an obligation

RFA 634/2026 Page 13 of 20

resembling those created by contract has been incurred and

has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure

to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation

from the party in default, as if such person had contracted

to discharge it and had broken his contract.

Explanation: In estimating the loss or damage arising from

a breach of contract, the means which existed of

remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-

performance of the contract must be taken into account."

44. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. M/s

Harishchandra Dwarkadas, AIR 1962 SC 366, held:

"The two principles on which damages in such cases are

calculated are well-settled. The first is that, as far as

possible, he who has proved a breach of a bargain to supply

what he contracted to get is to be placed, as far as money

can do it, in as good a situation as if the contract had been

performed; but this principle is qualified by a second, which

imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps

to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach, and debars

him from claiming any part of the damage which is due to

his neglect to take such steps… These two principles also

follow from the law as laid down in Section 73 read with the

Explanation thereof."

RFA 634/2026 Page 14 of 20

45. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in M. Lachia Setty

& Sons Ltd. v. The Coffee Board, Bangalore, (1980) 4 SCC 636, wherein it

was observed:

"The plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the

loss which he has sustained consequent upon the

defendant's wrong, and, if he fails to do so, he cannot claim

damages for any such loss which he ought reasonably to

have avoided."

46. Thus, to succeed in a claim of Damages, the plaintiff must establish:

(i) There was a breach of the terms of the Agreement; and

(ii) That all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss

consequent on the breach, were taken by the Plaintiff.

47. From pleadings and evidence of the Appellant, it is established that

there was a supply of electricity, to the suit premises by the Appellant and

that it got disconnected on 09.03.2006 due to electricity theft, and a case of

electricity theft, was registered against the Defendant.

48. While Defendant had asserted that he had been provided electricity

through a sub-meter, Plaintiff had examined PW-4 Sh. Shyam Singh, who

produced summoned record of the electricity connection installed in the

property. The perusal of original Bill dated 27.03.2006 Ex.PW-4/A, shows

that User of electricity meter was M/s UCO Bank, while owner was

Plaintiff. It also indicates that it was Final Assessment Bill in the sum of

Rs.2,59,672/-, raised by the Enforcement Assessment Cell.

RFA 634/2026 Page 15 of 20

49. From this Bill, it is evident that a separate electricity connection had

been provided to the Defendant / Tenant, as deposed by the plaintiff. There

was a theft committed leading to disconnection of electricity.

50. It is also not in dispute that multiple Letters were sent to the

Defendant as Ex. PW-1/8 to Ex. PW-1/12, in regard to electricity theft and

meter disconnection. The Defendant's replies and the Plaintiff's rejoinders

are Ex. PW-1/23 to Ex. PW-1/28. Thus, there was admittedly

communication exchanged between the parties in regard to the electricity

connection and possession.

51. Additionally, PW-4 Sh. Shyam Singh, Naib Nazir, Rohini Courts,

had produced the original record of the Suit No.301/2014, titled Girish

Kumar Jain vs. NDPL. The matter was amicably settled inter se Defendant

Nos.1 and 2, i.e. NDPL and Defendant herein (UCO Bank), wherein as

against Bill Ex.PW-4/A, Defendant No.2, i.e. UCO Bank paid Rs.88,300/- to

ND, TPDDL, towards settlement of the Final Bill.

52. Pertinently, PW-4 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Senior Manager, Legal, TPDDL,

in his Statement dated 18.01.2016 also stated that it was ready to install an

new connection, after completion of commercial formalities. A similar

statement was also made by the Plaintiff himself, wherein he stated that in

the light of the settlement recorded between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant

No. 2, his Suit may be disposed of as settled. Consequently, the Suit of the

Plaintiff was disposed of, in view of the aforesaid Settlement.

53. PW-5 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Customer Service Manager, TPDDL, in

his testimony also confirmed that matter got amicably settled inter-se parties

and stated that new connection was installed on 21.04.2016.

RFA 634/2026 Page 16 of 20

54. The testimony of PW-4, PW-4A and PW-5 establish that theft was

committed from the meter installed for the usage by the Defendant; that

there was disconnection of electricity connection, through which electricity

was being supplied to the tenanted premises, which was eventually settled

by the Defendant, on payment of Rs.88,300/- to TPDDL and new

connection was installed on 21.04.2016.

55. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that suit premises could not be rented out

from 25.01.2008 to 15.04.2013, on account of there being no electricity

connection, is patently incorrect.

56. The pertinent question, thus is whether the premises could not be

rented out from 25.01.2008 to 15.04.2013, on account of the act of

electricity theft by the defendant, leading to the disconnection of electricity,

as asserted by the plaintiff.

57. Not a single document has been placed on record to demonstrate the

date on which the electricity connection in the name of M/s G.B.S. Chits (P)

Ltd. was installed, the sanctioned load thereof at any given point of time,

any Application made to the NDPL for permission to draw such supply, or

any technical or physical impediment which stood in the way. The Affidavit

of Evidence Ex. PW-1/A is conspicuous by its silence, on these aspect.

Thus, while the record establishes that such an arrangement was

ultimately made on 15.04.2013, it does not establish that the arrangement

was unavailable to the Appellant during the period for which damages are

claimed.

RFA 634/2026 Page 17 of 20

58. The Appellant has failed to establish by cogent evidence that the

means of remedying the inconvenience caused by the absence of electricity

were unavailable to him, during the period from 25.01.2008 to 15.04.2013.

59. Having ultimately arranged electricity from another premises and

immediately thereafter, re-let the suit property, the Appellant has also failed

to establish why such reasonable steps could not have been taken earlier.

Consequently, the loss claimed for the said period cannot be attributed

entirely to the Respondent.

60. The means to mitigate the damage was available to the Plaintiff and

such arrangement could have been made earlier, and therefore, the Ld.

District Judge rightly denied the damages to the plaintiff.

II. Whether the Plaintiff proved the loss of Rate of Rent as Rs. 24,000/-

per Month:

61. Independently of the above, the Appellant's claim also fails for want

of proof of the quantum of damages at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per month, on

the basis of which the claim of Rs. 8,64,000/-, has been calculated.

62. The Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima,

(2018) 5 SCC 442, has held:

"…Every breach of contract gives rise to an action for

damages. Such amount of damages must be proved with

reasonable certainty."

63. Further, in the said judgment, it has been observed:

"It is now settled that where a party sustains loss by reason

of a breach of contract, the damages are to be granted so

RFA 634/2026 Page 18 of 20

as to place the suffering party in the same position as if the

contract had been performed. In light of the above, the

damages other than consequential loss have to be measured

at the time of the breach."

64. The sole document brought on record by the Appellant to support the

claimed rate of Rs. 24,000/- per month, is the Lease Deed Ex. PW-1/7 dated

15.04.2013, whereby the suit property was let out to Rajesh Kumar Sharma,

at Rs. 27,000/- per month. The said Lease Deed, being a document of April,

2013, can at best evidence the market rate as prevailing on that date. It

cannot, without any further evidence, establish the market rate as prevailing

on 25.01.2008, which is the date from which damages are claimed, and

which, in terms of Fortune Infrastructure (supra), is the point of time at

which the damages have to be measured.

65. It is also relevant to notice that in Suit No. 249/1999, decreed vide

Judgment dated 24.08.2013 (Ex. DW-1/2), the learned Civil Judge, on a

detailed appreciation of the evidence led therein, which included the

testimony of a property dealer as well as an admission by the defendant's

witness, held the prevailing rate of rent for the very same suit property to be

Rs. 27.50 per sq. ft. per month for a covered area of 355 sq. ft. That finding

pertained to a period ending on 08.12.2006 and translates to Rs. 9,762.50/-

per month. In the present proceedings, the Appellant has led no evidence,

whether by way of comparable Lease Deeds, testimony of any property

dealer, or any other cogent material, to establish that the market rate had

escalated, between 08.12.2006 and 25.01.2008, to Rs. 24,000/- per month.

RFA 634/2026 Page 19 of 20

66. The rate of Rs. 24,000/- per month, on which the entire claim rests, is

thus, a bare figure asserted in the pleadings, unsupported by any evidence

which meets the standard of "reasonable certainty," mandated in Fortune

Infrastructure (supra).

67. Additionally, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any document, of

advertisement, listing with any property dealer, or correspondence with any

prospective tenant, or proof of any offer received and declined, to

demonstrate that the Appellant had, at any point of time between 25.01.2008

and 15.04.2013, placed the suit property in the market, for letting. Not a

single witness has been examined to depose that he had inspected the suit

property with a view to taking it on rent and declined on account of the

absence of electricity. The averment that "no person is willing to take the

premises on rent" remains, thus, wholly unsupported. The mere fact that

the premises remained vacant during this period does not, by itself,

establish that the vacancy was caused by the absence of electricity.

68. The requirement of leading such evidence is neither exacting nor

formalistic, but is necessary to establish the causal link between the alleged

wrong and the loss claimed. The Appellant, having failed to establish the

fact of the loss and its causal connection with the alleged wrongful act of the

Respondent, cannot recover the quantum of the loss.

Conclusion:

69. In view of the foregoing discussion, it established that there is no

merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed.

RFA 634/2026 Page 20 of 20

70. The pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/va/RS