RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 1 of 26

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 28

th

October, 2025

Pronounced on: 18

th

May, 2026

Date of Uploading:18

th

May, 2026

+ RFA (COMM) 486/2025 & CAV 313/2025 & CM APPL.

51447/2025, CM APPL. 51448/2025, CM APPL.51809/2025

M/S CRI LIMITED,

2E/26 SWAMI RAM TIRATH NAGAR

JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI-110055 ....PETITIONER

Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocate

along with Mr. Abhay Pratap,

Advocate

versus

1. PRAN NATH MEHTA

S/O LATE R. N MEHTA,

A-20, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI. …RESPONDENT NO.1

2. RAM MEHTA

S/O LATE R. N MEHTA,

A-20, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI. …RESPONDENT NO.2

3. RAJ MEHTA

S/O LATE R. N MEHTA,

A-20, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI. …RESPONDENT NO.3

4. VIMAL NATH MEHTA

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 2 of 26

S/O LATE R. N MEHTA,

A-20, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI. …RESPONDENT NO.4

5. RANI WESLEY MEHTA

S/O LATE R. N MEHTA,

A-20, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI. ...RESPONDENT NO.5

Through: Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Mr. P.P.

Ahuja, Mr. Shivam Gaur, Mr. Vidit

Garg, Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Mr.

Aryan Kumar, Ms. Rashi Singh and

Ms. Shabina, Advocates

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.

1.This appeal has been preferred by the original defendant under

Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLI

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

2.The present appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 29

th

May, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”) passed by

the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Central

District, Delhi in Civil Suit (Commercial) No. 3996/2021.

3.By the aforesaid impugned judgment, the suit preferred by the

respondent-plaintiff came to be decreed. A declaration was granted that:

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 3 of 26

a)the defendant is not a statutory tenant under the Delhi Rent Control

Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “DRC Act”), and that the

Commercial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as per

Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter

referred to as the “TP Act”),

b)the suit is not barred by the provision of Section 50 of the DRC Act.

c)the suit cannot be said to be not maintainable in view of non-

compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act, 2015.

d)the learned Commercial Court has further held that the respondent-

plaintiff is entitled to possession of the tenanted suit premises and

is also entitled to recover pre-suit rent/ occupation charge at the rate

of Rs. 40,000/- per month and pendentelite at the rate of Rs.

1,20,000/- per month for a period of 44 months, i.e., from October,

2021 to May, 2025. It has further been held that the respondent-

plaintiff shall be entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/-

per month.

e)the statement made by the counsel for the appellant/original

defendant that the defendant will not carry out any alteration or

create any third-party interest in the suit property in any manner

whatsoever was accepted and accordingly, the said issue was also

considered and decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 4 of 26

f)interest at the rate of 9% on pendente lite and future period also

came to be awarded.

4.The relevant facts which are necessary for deciding the present

appeal are as under:

i.The suit property consists of first and second floor on the property

number 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-

110055 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the “Suit Property”).

ii.The case of the respondent-plaintiff before the learned Commercial

Court was that one Late Smt. Rajrani Mehta, the mother of plaintiff no.1

and grandmother of plaintiff no.2-5 was owner of the Suit Property.

iii.The plaintiff no. 2 to 5 are the children of Mr. Ashwani Kumar

Mehta, the other son of Smt. Rajrani Mehta. The aforesaid property was

inherited by the plaintiffs, who claim to be the landlords of the Suit

Property by virtue of the Will dated 14

th

May, 1998 and the Codicil dated

21

st

July, 2002.

iv.One M/s National Capital Register Limited was inducted as a tenant

by late Smt. Rajrani Mehta. Subsequently, there was a change of name and

it came to be known as the appellant/defendant company.

v.As there was a failure to pay rent, a notice terminating the tenancy

was issued on 14

th

December, 1995, followed by proceedings for eviction

under Section 14(1)(a), (b), and (j) of the DRC Act on 12

th

May, 1997,

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 5 of 26

vide Eviction Petition no. 406/2008. Claim therein was resisted by the

defendant. The landlady Smt. Rajrani Mehta expired, during pendency of

the said proceedings, on 13

th

January, 2003.

vi.In the aforesaid background, plaintiff no. 2 to 5 executed powers of

attorney in favour of plaintiff no. 1 on 09

th

June, 2003 and 05

th

July, 2009.

vii.A further registered Relinquishment Deed dated 02

nd

July, 2021

came to be executed by plaintiff no. 2 to 5 in favour of plaintiff no. 1. As

such, plaintiff no. 1, who had initially inherited half portion of the

aforesaid suit property became the absolute owner of the entire Suit

Property.

viii.Accordingly, the plaintiff started getting rent from the defendant

company through cheques. Excluding electricity charges, the defendant

paid rent of Rs.2,875/- per month which was subsequently increased to

Rs.3,162.50/- with effect from 01

st

March, 1994.

ix.Though demanded vide communication dated 26

th

March, 1994, the

enhanced rate of rent was never paid and the defendant rather took

recourse to proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the DRC

Act on 16

th

August, 2002, seeking permission to deposit rent before the

Additional Rent Controller (“ARC”). The said relief was sought for the

period from May, 1998 to October, 2005.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 6 of 26

x.The plaintiff issued another notice dated 16th February, 2015

seeking enhancement of rent to Rs. 3,478.70/- per month. However, the

defendant has paid the rent @ Rs.3,173/- for April and May, 2015 instead

of rent @ Rs.3,478.70/-.

xi.Vide notice dated 28

th

March, 2018 issued under Section 6A of the

DRC Act, rent was sought to be enhanced to Rs. 3,826.62/- from Rs.

3,478.70/- after completion of a period of three years from the date of last

increase.

xii.Since the increased rent was not paid, it prompted the plaintiff to

file a suit being Civil Suit No.3569/2017 for recovery of Rs.22,088/-, in

the form of arrears of rent. The said suit came to be decreed on 19

th

September, 2019 by the Civil Judge in favour of the plaintiff.

xiii.In exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the

DRC Act, the ARC, vide order dated 16

th

July, 2019, directed the

defendant to pay the arrears of enhanced rent along with interest.

xiv.Legal notice dated 28

th

December, 2020 was sent to the defendant

to vacate the suit property and demanding mesne profits at the rate of Rs.

3,00,000/- per month from 01

st

February, 2021.

xv.As the plaintiff sought interim injunction, pre-institution mediation

under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was not carried

out and the subject suit came to be instituted seeking the following reliefs:-

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 7 of 26

“Prayer:

i. To pass a decree for Possession may be passed in favour of

the plaintiff nos. against the defendant in respect of first &

second floor portions of the property bearing no. 2E/26,

Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan, New Delhi as shown

‘Red’ in the site plan annexed with the plaint;

ii. A Joint decree for a sum of Rs.26,08,995/- (Rupees Twenty

Lakhs Hight Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Five) may be

passed in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 5 against the defendant

as per the averment made in the Plaint.

iii. interest at the rate of 15% per annum may also be awarded

on Rs.26,08,995/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Eight Thousand

Nine Hundred Ninety Five) to the Plaintiffs against the

defendant from the date of filing of the suit till realization of

the aforesaid amount;

iv. To pass a decree for Permanent Injunction may be passed

in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant thereby

restraining the defendant thereby restraining the defendant

through their tenants/employees and person working there

from parting with possession of the first & second floor of the

property bearing no.2E/26 Swami Ram Tirath Nagar,

Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 or any part thereof in the

manner as shown ‘Red’ in the site plan annexed with the plaint

to any person except to the plaintiff no.1 who is the registered

owner/landlord qua the constructed property bearing no.

2E/26 Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan, New Delhi

110055 competent to receive the possession of the said

portions of the aforesaid property from the defendant;

v. To pass a decree for permanent injunction may be passed

in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant thereby

restraining the defendant/Occupiers from changing the

existing structure including unauthorized construction as on

date of the suit premises i.e. first and second floor of the

property bearing no. 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar,

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 8 of 26

Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 as shown 'Red' in the site

plan, in any manner,

vi. A decree for Mandatory Injunction may be passed thereby

directing the defendant company through their

employees/person working on their behalf to change the SI

Pipes installed in the property in respect of the first and

second floor portion of the property from the top floor to the

ground floor portions of the property at their own cost and

Expenses in order to save the Life of the building and also

regarding the seepage of the water from second floor to the

Basement floor of the aforesaid property;

vii. A decree for Mandatory Injunction may be passed thereby

directing/restrain the defendant company through their

employee, director and person on working of their behalf for

sending the illegal rent at rate of Rs. 3,479/- per month in the

name of plaintiff/Plaintiffs cheques at Rs. 3,479/- per month

as rent in the name of the plaintiff/plaintiffs in respect of suit

premises as the rent of the premises with affect from

01.05.2018 after the service of the third notice dated

28.03.2018 was issued and served and same was replied.

viii. Cost of the suit may also be awarded to the plaintiffs

against the defendant.

ix. Any other relief may be awarded to the plaintiffs seeing

the facts and circumstances of the case against the

defendant.”

xvi.The defendant-appellant herein was served with the suit summons

on 09

th

December, 2021. The written statement came to be filed on 24

th

February, 2022, thereby urging dismissal of the suit, as the claim in the

suit was hit by the Section 50 of the DRC Act, which bars the jurisdiction

of the Civil Court to entertain the suit.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 9 of 26

xvii.Another objection based on Section 12A of the Commercial Courts

Act, 2015 was raised, as the recourse to mandatory pre-litigation mediation

had not been taken.

xviii.It was further urged that though the defendant had offered, the

plaintiff has not accepted the rent. It is claimed that the defendant is a

statutory tenant and that since the plaintiff was not accepting the rent, the

same was deposited before the ARC by taking out appropriate

proceedings.

xix.It was further urged that in Eviction Petition No. RCARC No.

478084/2016, instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant, the very

similar prayers for eviction are sub-judice before the Court of learned

ARC.

xx.It was further claimed that the rent of the suit premises was

Rs.3,478.70/- per month.

xxi.Rest of the contentions which were raised by the plaintiff were

denied and the dismissal of the suit was sought.

xxii.Having regard to the rival submissions, the learned Commercial

Court framed following issues which reads thus:-

“Issues:

i. Whether defendant is a statutory tenant under Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1950? OPD

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 10 of 26

ii. Whether this Court has no subject jurisdiction in terms

of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD

iii. Whether suit is liable to be rejected for non-compliance

of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015? OPD

iv. Whether plaintiff no. 1 is entitled to decree of possession

of tenanted suit property i.e. first and second floors of built

up property i.e. 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar,

Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi as shown in the site plan?

OPP

v. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a joint decree of

Rs.26,08,995/- alongwith interest @15% per annum? OPP

vi. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent

injunction restraining the defendant or any person acting

through them from parting with the possession of the suit

property to any third person? OPP

vii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent

injunction restraining changing the structure of the suit

property or carrying out unauthorised construction? OPP

viii. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree of mandatory

injunction directing the defendant tenant to change the

pipes installed on the first and second floors at their own

cost? OPP”

xxiii.The plaintiff, in support of his claim, examined PW-l, Pran Nath

Mehtai.e., plaintiff no.1, who through his evidence exhibited 37

documents. The plaintiff also examined PW-2 Anuradha Arora, a landlady

in the adjoining property in the locality, whose evidence was exhibited as

Ex. PW-2/A, so as to establish the prevalent rent of the similar property.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 11 of 26

xxiv.As against the above, DW-1, Mr. Ram Aggarwal was examined vide

affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW1/A, who exhibited six documents in all.

xxv.After the witnesses were subjected to examination-in-chief and

cross-examination, the suit came to be decreed as observed hereinabove

and as such, this appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the said

judgment.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant-original defendant would urge

that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commercial

Court failed to appreciate the evidence and misapplied Section 6A and 8

of the DRC Act.

6.According to him, the findings recorded as regard to use and

occupation charges are without any legal basis and in absence of evidence

to that effect.

7.It is further claimed that the judgment relied on by the learned

Commercial Court in the matter of Deepak Nijhawan And Anr. Vs. RN

Abrol 2015 SCC OnLine DL 14321, is wholly misplaced in the facts and

circumstances of the case in hand.

8.It is further urged that in absence of any evidence to establish that

the rent being paid exceeded Rs. 3,500/-, the proceedings ought not to have

been entertained in view of Section 50 of the DRC Act. Furthermore, it is

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 12 of 26

urged that the learned Commercial Court failed to take judicial notice of

the pendency of parallel eviction proceedings.

9.In the aforesaid factual matrix, it is claimed that there is an illegal

termination of tenancy under the TP Act.

10.Similarly, the contentions are also in regard to the award of

exorbitant occupation charges, particularly when there was a lockdown

during the COVID-19 period, which fact the learned Commercial Court

failed to appreciate.

11.According to him, the use and occupation charges awarded at the

rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per month for the period from October, 2021 to May,

2025 are without any basis.

12.It is further urged that there is no material on record to justify the

grant of interest, exorbitant occupation charges and that being so, the

appeal is liable to be allowed by quashing the impugned judgment and

order.

13.As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-plaintiff would urge that a perusal of the plaint would reveal

that there are sufficient pleadings in terms of Order VI of the CPC, as the

plaint contains all material facts.

14.Drawing support from Section 4 of the Schedule appended to the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015, it is his contention that the appellant has

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 13 of 26

not conducted in accordance with the said Schedule in the matter of filing

the written statement.

15.It is further urged that the learned Commercial Court has considered

all the facets of matter and has rightly decreed the suit.

16.That being so, the prayer for dismissal is sought.

17.We have heard the respective counsel for the parties and having

considered the rival submissions, it is apparent that the

respondent/plaintiff has proved the following documents: -

“1. Copies of Power of Attorneys dated 9.6.2003 and

5.7.2009 are Ex-PW1/1 and PW1/2.

2. Copy of the lease Deed dated 26.2.1973 is Ex-PW1/3.

3. The original of the site plan of the property No. 2E/26,

Jhandewalan Extension, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar in respect

of the 1

st

" and 2nd floor of the property is Ex-PW1/4.

4. The copy of Eviction Petition No. 406/2008 titled as Raj

Rani Mehta VS. CRI& Ors. Dated 12.05.1997, which is Ex-

PW1/5.

5. The copy Written Statement filed by the defendant in the

aforesaid eviction petition No. 406/2008 titled as Raj Rani

Mehta Vs. CRI & Ors is Ex-PW1/6.

6. The copy of registered Will and Testament dated

14.05.1998 of Smt. Raj Rani Mehta in favour of her sons

Pran Mehta and Ashwini Mehta is Ex-PW-1/7.

7. The copy of second Codicil dated 21.07.2002 signed and

executed by Smt. Raj Rani Mehta are Ex-PW1/8.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 14 of 26

8. The copy of the termination/vacation notice dated

28.12.2020 is Ex-PW1/9.

9. That the defendant company had replied to the said

notice vide reply dated 16.01.2021 is Ex-PW1/10.

10. The certified copy of the Relinquishment Deed by

plaintiff No. 2 to 5 in favour of plaintiff No. 1/deponent is

Ex-PW-1/11.

11. The copy of the letter for increase of rent dated

26.03.1994 signed an executed by deceased Raj Rani Mehta

is Ex-PW1/12.

12. The reply dated 15.04.1994 to the letter dated

26.03.1994 by defendant company is Ex-PW1/13.

13. The copy of the statement given by Sh. Pran Nath Mehta

in Misc. Application No. 33 of 2002, titled as Cri Ltd. Vs

Pran Nath Mehta before ARC Delhi is Ex-PW1/14.

14. The copy of Statement given by Sh. V. P. Khaitan in

Misc. Application No. 33 of 2002, titled as Cri Ltd. Vs Pran

Nath Mehta before ARC Delhi is Ex-PW1/15.

15. The copy of order passed by the learned ARC in Misc.

Application No. 33 of 2002, titled as Cri Ltd. Vs Pran Nath

Mehta before ARC Delhi is Ex-PW1/16.

16. The copy of notice dated 16.02.2015 for increase of rent

u/s 6A of the DRC Act is Ex-PW1/17.

17. The reply dated 10.03.2015 to the notice dated

16.02.2015 for increase of rent u/s 6A of the DRC Act is Ex-

PW1/18.

18. Copy of the third notice dated 28.03.2018 for increase

of rent u/s 6A of the DRC Act is Ex-PW1/19.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 15 of 26

19. The reply dated 26.04.2018 to the notice dated

28.03.2018 for increase of rent u/s 6A of the DRC Act is Ex-

PW1/20.

20. The certified co copy of the judgement/decree dated

19.09.2019 passed by Sh. Mayank Goyal Ld. Civil Judge,

in Suit bearing no. CS 3569/2017 titled as Pran Nath Mehta

Vs. CRI Ltd. is Ex-PW1/21.

21. Copy of the order passed by the Ld. ARC Delhi dated

16.07.2019 in Eviction case No. 406/2008 titled as raj Rani

Mehta(deceased) through her LRs vs. CRI Ltd. is Ex-

PW1/22.

22. Copy of the order dated 27.8.2019 passed by the ARC

in Eviction petition No 406/2008 titled as raj Rani Mehta

(deceased) through her LRs vs. CRI Ltd of striking out the

defence of the defendant is Ex. PW1/23.

23. The copy of plaintiff's notice dated 12.07.2018 is Ex.

PW1/24 (Colly).

24. The copy of the defendant's reply dated 25.07.2018 to

the plaintiff's notice dated 12.07.2018 is Ex. PW1/25

(Colly).

25. The copy of plaintiff's notice dated 01.08.2018 is Ex.

PW1/26 (Colly).

26. The copy of the defendant's reply dated 07.08.2018 to

the plaintiffs notice dated 12.07.2018 is Ex. PW1/27

(Colly).

27. Certified copy of the Registered lease Agreement dated

27.3.2018 executed by Smt. Anuradha Arora of the property

bearing no. 2E/27, Jhandewalan Extension, Swami Ram

Tirath Marg, New Delhi 110055 is Ex. PW1/30.

28. The copies of letters dated 31.7.2019 and 4.1.2020 sent

by plaintiffs is Ex. PW1/31 & 32.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 16 of 26

29. Copy of the application bearing No. DR. No. 713/2020

dated 22.07.2020 filed by the defendant under section 27,

Delhi Rent Control Act is Ex. PW1/33.

30. The objections were filed by the objectors under section

27 (4) of the DRC act dated 07.01.2021 is Ex. PW1/34.

31. Copy of the application bearing No. DR. No. 26/2021

dated 06.01.2021 filed by the defendant under section 27,

Delhi Rent Control Act for deposit of rent is Ex. PW1/35.

32. The objections were filed by the objectors under section

27 (4) of the DRC act dated 16.02.2021 is Ex. PW1/36.

33. Copies of the cheques alongwith and the letters dated

02, March, 2020 and 1", May, 2020 sent by the defendant

company in the name of Plaintiff no. 1 Pran Nath Mehta are

Ex. PW1/37 to Ex. PW1/40.

34. The photographs for the leakage and other portions of

the property is Ex. PW1/41 to Ex. PW1/49.

35. The report dated 20.09.2021 submitted by the Om Singh

& Associates is correct, which is Ex. PW1/51.

36. The certified copy of registered Conveyance Deed dated

15.06.2022 for freehold of the aforesaid property hearing

no. 2E/26, Jhandewalan Extension, Swami Ram Tirath

Nagar, New Delhi. Certified copy of the original

Conveyance Deed dated 15.06.2022 is Ex. PW1/52.

37. Certified copy of the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by

of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi CM No. 1845/2024 titled as

CRI Limited V/s. Pran Nath Mehta is PW1/53.”

18.The appellant/defendant relied on the following six documents,

which were proved by him:-

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 17 of 26

“i. Copy of Power of Attorney dated 03.01.2022 is Ex DW-

1/1.

ii. Copy of eviction petition bearing No. RC ARC No.

478084/2016 titled as Smt. Rani Mehta (Deceased Now) Vs.

CRI Limited and others dated 12.05.1997 against the

defendant company and the same is already Ex-PW-1/5.

iii. Copy of application bearing No. 406/2008 titled as Smt.

Raj Rani Mehta (Deceased Now) Vs. CRI Limited and

others filed before the court of Shri Vinay Singhal, ARC,

Delhi under section 15(1) of the DRC Act, 1958 filed by the

plaintiff was initially exhibited as Ex-DW-1/2 and later de-

exhibited and marked as Mark A.

iv. Copy of order dated 16.07.2019 passed No. E. No.

406/2008 by Ld. ARC Shrish Aggarwal, Delhi is already

Ex-PW-1/22.

v. Copy of appeals bearing No. RCT 133 of 2019 titled as

Pran Nath Mehta and others Vs. CRI Limited and RCT 131

of 2019 titled as. CRI Limited Vs. Raj Rani Mehta through

LRs filed before the court of Ld. DJ Cum RCT Tis Hazari,

Central District, Delhi was initially exhibited as Ex-DW/1/3

and later deexhibited and marked as Mark B.

vi. Copy of orders passed in DR No. 114/2021 New No.

1111/2021, DR No. 40/2020 New No. 428/2020, DR No.

302/2019 New No. 2554/2019, DR No. 277/2019 New No.

1839/2019, DR No. 1613/2018, DR No. 37/2019 New No.

282/2019, DR No. 124/2019 New No. 736/2019, DR No.

211/2018 New No. 1243/2018, DR No. 312/2018 New No.

1975/2018, DR No. 360/2018 New No. 2316/2018, were

initially exhibited as Ex-DW-1/4 (Colly) and later

deexhibited and marked as Mark-C.”

19.The examination-in-chief submitted by the respondent/plaintiff

speaks of the aforesaid documents being proved by him through his

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 18 of 26

evidence and specifically states that, in the year 1989, the rent charged to

the appellant/defendant was Rs. 2,875/-. He also deposed regarding the

eviction petition bearing no. 406/2008, which was subsequently

withdrawn.

20.The respondent/plaintiff has specifically stated about the notice

dated 26

th

March, 1994, demanding a 10% increase over the last paid rent.

He has also stated that the increased rent in notices dated 26

th

March, 1994,

16

th

February, 2015, and 28

th

March, 2018 was not exorbitant or

incorrectly calculated.

21.At this point, it is pertinent to note the Section 6A of the DRC Act,

which reads as under:-

“6A. Revision of rent.—Notwithstanding anything contained

in this Act, the standard rent, or, where no standard rent is

fixed under the provisions of this Act in respect of any

premises, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the

tenant, may be increased by ten percent. every three years.”

22.A plain reading of the said section would reveal that in cases where

no standard rent has been fixed for any premises under the provisions of

the DRC Act, the landlord may increase the rent by 10% every three years,

from what was agreed upon.

23.Further, a reference to Section 8 of the DRC Act could also be made,

the same reads thus:-

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 19 of 26

“8. Notice of increase of rent.—(1) Where a landlord wishes

to increase the rent of any premises, he shall give the tenant

notice of his intention to make the increase and in so far as

such increase is lawful under this Act, it shall be due and

recoverable only in respect of the period of the tenancy after

the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice is

given.

(2) Every notice under sub-section (1) shall be in writing

signed by or on behalf of the landlord and given in the

manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property

Act, 1882 (4 of 1882).”

24.A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it evident that where a

landlord wishes to increase the rent, he is required to give a notice to the

tenant stating his intention of increasing the rent. The provision further

states that any such increase, insofar as it is lawful under the DRC Act, the

same becomes due and recoverable after the expiry of thirty days from the

date on which the notice is given. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 further

clarifies that the notice shall be in writing and signed by or on behalf of

the landlord and is given in the manner as contemplated under Section 106

of the TP Act.

25.A conjoint reading of both the Sections would reveal that under the

DRC Act, the landlord can increase the rent by 10% every three years, as

is permissible under Section 6A, thus, such an increase would be valid,

provided that the landlord sends a notice to the tenant to this effect in

writing. As such, the increased rent becomes due and recoverable upon the

expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice is given.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 20 of 26

26.At this stage, it would be apposite to note that Section 3(c) and

Section 50 of the DRC Act, they read as under:

“Section 3:

3. Act not to apply to certain premises.—Nothing in this Act

shall apply-

(c) to any premises, whether residential or not, whose

monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred

rupees; or

Section 50:

50. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain

matters.—

(1)Save a otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil

court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as

it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any

premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any

tenant therefrom or to any other matter which the

Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide,

and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be

taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted

by any civil court or other authority.

(2)If, immediately before the commencement of this Act,

there is any suit or proceeding pending in any civil court

for the eviction of any tenant from any premises to which

this Act applies and the construction of which has been

completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the

9th day of June, 1955, such suit or proceeding shall, on

such commencement, abate.

(3)If, in pursuance of any decree or order made by a court,

any tenant has been evicted after the 16th day of August,

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 21 of 26

1958, from any premises to which this Act applies and the

construction of which has been completed after the 1st

day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955,

then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other

law, the Controller may, on an application made to him

in this behalf by such evicted tenant within six months

from the date of eviction, direct the landlord to put the

tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such

compensation as the Controller thinks fit.

(4)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as

preventing a civil court from entertaining any suit or

proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any

premises to which this Act applies or any question as to

the person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent

of such premises.”

27.The respondent/plaintiff had specifically stated in his evidence that

from 01

st

May, 2018, the rent of the suit premises was Rs.3,826.62/-.

However, we are not required to go into the aforesaid factual matrix, as

the challenge to that extent has already been rendered infructuous as

possession has already been taken over from the appellant in execution

proceedings. We need to take judicial notice of the said fact that the

possession of the suit property presently vests with the respondent/decree-

holder.

28.In the aforesaid background, the point which, in our opinion,

warrants determination in light of the issues framed by the learned

Commercial Court that whether the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to a

joint decree of the amount of Rs. 26,08,995/- along with interest at the rate

of 15% per annum.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 22 of 26

29.The learned Commercial Court, while dealing with the recovery of

the amount of Rs. 26,08,995/- along with interest, took into account the

claims of the plaintiff/respondent, which were non-deposit of rent for two

months at the rate of Rs. 3,479/- per month; increase in rent for 31 months

at the rate of Rs. 347/- per month, along with interest thereon at 15%,

amounting to Rs. 25,995/-; occupational charges at the rate of Rs.

3,00,000/- per month commencing from 1st February, 2021 till July, 2021,

calculated at Rs. 18,00,000/-; interest thereon at 15% for the period from

February, 2021 to July, 2021, amounting to Rs. 1,35,000/-; occupational

charges at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per month for two months

commencing from August, 2021 to September, 2021, totalling Rs.

6,00,000/-; interest thereon at 15%, amounting to Rs. 15,000/-; and legal

charges of Rs. 33,000/-.

30.For the purpose of considering occupational charges of Rs.

3,00,000/-, as claimed by the plaintiff/respondent, the learned Commercial

Court appreciated the evidence of PW-2, Ms. Anuradha Arora, whose

affidavit of examination-in-chief was exhibited as Ex. PW-2/A. She placed

on record the Lease Agreement dated 27

th

March, 2018 marked as Ex. PW-

1/30, in relation to property bearing No. 2E/27, Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi, she stated that she was receiving rent of Rs. 2,00,000/- per

month for a property measuring approximately 700 sq. ft. It is claimed by

her that the prevailing rent for the said property was around Rs. 150/- per

sq. ft.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 23 of 26

31.It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent that the suit property

measures around 2,000 to 2,500 sq. ft. If we carefully peruse the evidence

of PW-2, it can be inferred that she stated that the property had been let

out to M/s. Godfrey Phillip India Limited, and currentlyMojo Pizza is the

tenant and is paying a rent of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. Her evidence that

prevailing rent is around Rs.150/- to Rs.200/- per sq. feet is based on a

statement made to her by some broker, who was, however, not examined.

32.Apart from the above, she specifically stated that the adjoining

buildings are occupied by eateries/restaurants, who are running

international brands such as Domino’s and Subway. She further stated that

the rent being received by her pertains only to the ground floor premises.

33.Upon an analysis of the evidence of PW-1,it is worth noting that

the property of the respondent/plaintiff is stated to be located adjacent to

that of the above-said witness. The property in which the

appellant/defendant was a tenant had been occupied since 1971, and the

condition of the property occupied by the appellant has not been spelt out,

particularly with regard to any improvements, if any, carried out by the

respondent. The property of the respondent, which was occupied by the

appellant, is not situated on the ground floor and, therefore, would not

fetch rent comparable to that fetched by the property of PW-2. In such

circumstances, a certain degree of guesswork is permissible.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 24 of 26

34.In this background, the findings recorded by learned Commercial

Court, particularly, having regard to the lockdown period during the

COVID-19 period, evidence of PW-2 qua the location and utility of her

premises, the other mitigating factors as reflected in the foregoing

paragraphs, we are of the view that the assessment of pre-suit monthly

occupational charges @ Rs.40,000/- and during pendency of the suit i.e.,

from October, 2021 to May, 2025, the assessment of the same @

Rs.1,20,000/- per month for 44 months isjustified.

35.Insofar as the interest granted at the rate of 9% pendente lite is

concerned, Section 34 of the CPC assumes significance and is reproduced

hereunder:

“Interest.

(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of

money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such

rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the

principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date

of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such

principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the

suit, [with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per

cent. per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such

principal sum], from the date of the decree to the date of

payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit :

[Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so

adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the

rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent. per

annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 25 of 26

or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which

moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in

relation to commercial transactions.

Explanation I.--In this Sub-section, "nationalised bank"

means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970 (5 of 1970).

Explanation II.-- For the purposes of this section, a

transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected

with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the

liability.]

(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment

of further interest [on such principal sum] from the date of

the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the

Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a

separate suit therefor shall not lie.”

36.Section 34 of the CPC empowers the Court to award interest at such

rate as it deems reasonable on the principal sum adjudged from the date of

the suit till the date of the decree. The provision further empowers the

Court to grant further interest from the date of decree till the date of the

payment of such amount, but the said further interest cannot exceed 6%

per annum. The proviso, however, stipulates that in cases if the liability

arises out of a commercial transaction, and in such an eventuality, the rate

of further interest may exceed 6% per annum, subject to the contractual

rate of interest, or in the absence of such rate, the rate at which nationalized

banks lend in relation to commercial transactions.

RFA (COMM) 486/2025 Page 26 of 26

37.The grant of pendente lite and future interest @ 9% on the

rent/occupational charges, as awarded by the learned Commercial Court,

is quite justified, particularly having regard to the fact that the suit

premises was being used for commercial purposes.

38.As such, no case for causing interference in the Appellate

Jurisdiction is made out.

39.The appeal, as such, fails and stands dismissed.

40.Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

41.Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE

(JUDGE)

ANISH DAYAL

(JUDGE)

MAY 18, 2026/sky/ay/sk