RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 1 of 16

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 13.05.2026

Judgment delivered on: 29.05.2026

Judgment uploaded on:29.05.2026

+ RFA(COMM) 487/2025, CM APPL. 51512/2025, CM APPL.

51514/2025, CM APPL. 58266/2025 & CM APPL. 9092/2026

M/S JAGDISH PRINTERS AND COMPUTERS SOLUTIONS PVT

LTD ..... Appellant

versus

MUKESH CHAND SINGAL & ANR. .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Ms. Shradha Bhargava,

Mr. Arjun Bhalla, Ms. Harshita Malik, Ms.

Rishika Jain, Advs.

For the Respondent : Mr. Kuldeep Sehrawat and Dr. Monisha

Sehrawat, Advs. for R-1

R-1 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

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

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 2 of 16

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 TDS

1

certificates issued by the

Appellant to Respondent No. 1 for the period 2011-12 to 2022-23 and the

1

Tax Deducted at Source

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 3 of 16

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 of Rs. 60,500/- per month from 01.02.2024 for a further period of

three years and, if the premises were still not vacated till 31.03.2027, then an

increase of 10% on Rs. 60,500/- until vacation of the premises, whichever

occurs earlier, along with interest at 6% per annum on the amount of

damages. Appellant and Respondent No. 2 were directed to clear all dues

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 4 of 16

within four [4] weeks.

In addition, Appellant and Respondent No. 2 were restrained from

creating any third-party interest in the suit property.

10. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the Appellant has preferred the

present appeal through Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, i.e., the

Managing Director, has not preferred any separate appeal.

Submissions by the Appellant

11. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned senior counsel for the Appellant, stated

that Respondent No. 1 has failed to place on record any evidence to prove

ownership/title in the suit property. He stated that Respondent No. 1 has also

failed to place any rent agreement evidencing the alleged lease inter-se the

Appellant and Respondent No. 1.

12. He stated that the Trial Court failed to consider that Respondent No. 1

suppressed material facts qua the suit property, such as that the same has

been allotted on lease by Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure

Development Corporation [‘DSIIDC’] to the proprietorship firm Jagdish and

Company. He stated that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that Respondent

No. 1 failed to take any permission from DSIIDC for allegedly subletting the

property, which shows that the suit property was never sublet to the

Appellant but the same was occupied by the Appellant in its own right.

13. He stated that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that Respondent No.

1 had taken inconsistent stands regarding his title in the suit property and

that the central issue, whether the leasehold rights allotted initially to

proprietorship firm Jagdish and Company, stood transferred to the

Appellant, i.e., Jagdish Printers and Computers Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

remained unaddressed.

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 5 of 16

14. He stated that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that Respondent No.

1, while acting as a Director of the Appellant and being in-charge of its

accounts, misused his position to divert substantial funds from the

Appellant’s accounts to his personal accounts under the guise of rent

payments. The amounts allegedly paid as rent were inconsistent and varied

in nature, as corroborated by the ledger entries on record.

15. He stated that the business of the sole proprietorship firm Jagdish and

Company was taken over by the Appellant, as is evident from the transfer of

TIN [‘Tax Identification Number’] issued by the GNCTD

2

for collection and

deposit of VAT

3

and the ESIC

4

Number issued by the competent authority

from the proprietorship firm to the Appellant. He stated, therefore, that the

allotment of the suit property made by DSIIDC in the year 2003 in favour of

proprietor firm Jagdish and Company also stood transferred to the Appellant

upon its incorporation in the year 2004 and take over of the business. He

stated, therefore, the Appellant is the lessee of the suit property qua

DSIIDC, and the Respondent No. 1 has no leasehold rights. He stated that

the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 do not have a relationship of landlord

and tenant. He stated that the proprietorship firm Jagdish and Company has

ceased to exist, and all business of the erstwhile proprietorship firm is

carried on by the Appellant.

16. He stated that the payment of rent by Appellant to Respondent No. 1

is impermissible under Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013

[‘Companies Act’], as it is a related party transaction. He also submitted that

there is a statutory bar to this alleged transaction of landlord-tenant under

2

The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

3

Value Added Tax

4

Employees’ State Insurance Corporation

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 6 of 16

Section 47 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

17. He stated that the issuance of the TDS certificates for the financial

years 2011-12 to 2023-24 recording payment of rent is a matter of record,

however, the same does not bind the Appellant as the accounts were being

supervised by Respondent No. 1. He stated that the fact that suit property is

not reflected in the balance sheet of the Appellant as the immovable asset of

the company is also not binding on the Appellant. He stated that the fact that

the payment of rent to Respondent No. 1 is recorded in the balance sheet of

the Appellant also does not bind the Appellant.

18. He stated that it is a matter of record that the Appellant, despite

service of summons and due opportunity to file a written statement, did not

file any written statement, and its defence was struck off. He stated that the

Appellant is relying upon the pleas raised in the written statement filed by

Respondent No. 2 to impugn the judgment of the Trial Court.

19. He also prayed that CM APPL. 9092/2026 filed under Order XLI

Rule 27 CPC for bringing on record 13 additional documents be allowed.

Submissions by Respondent No. 1

20. Mr. Kuldeep Sehrawat and Dr. Monisha Sehrawat, learned counsel for

Respondent No. 1, stated that only Respondent No. 2 filed its written

statement. He stated that the Appellant’s defence was struck off by the Trial

Court vide order dated 26.07.2024. He stated, therefore, CM APPL.

9092/2026 cannot be entertained by this Court.

21. He stated that Respondent No. 1 was not required to prove its title of

the suit property since the rent was regularly paid by Appellant to

Respondent No. 1 till December 2022, which clearly proves that there

existed a landlord-tenant relationship. He stated that it is settled law that, in

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 7 of 16

an eviction proceeding, the landlord is not required to establish ownership of

the suit property. The landlord is only required to prove the existence of the

landlord-tenant relationship and the valid termination of tenancy, which in

the present case was on 07.08.2023.

22. He stated that Respondent No.1 never resigned as Director of the

Appellant Company and became aware of the alleged resolution dated

17.10.2018 only after institution of the underlying suit, when the same was

relied upon by Respondent No. 2. The continued involvement of Respondent

No.1 in the affairs of the Company is further evident from the balance sheets

for the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 which are duly signed by

Respondent No. 1. He stated that in cross-examination, Respondent No. 2

admitted that apart from the resolution dated 17.10.2018 which purportedly

records the resignation, there existed no separate resignation letter of

Respondent No.1 in the records of the Appellant.

23. He stated that it is admitted that the equity shareholding of the

Appellant Company was equally divided [50% each] between Respondent

No.1 and Respondent No.2. He stated that the Appellant and Respondent

No. 2 cannot claim that Respondent No. 1 deceitfully authorised certain

false expenses, especially when both Directors (i.e., Respondent Nos. 1 and

2) had continuously signed the balance sheets and financial records of the

Company since its incorporation in 2004, and no complaint regarding the

same was ever raised.

COURT’S FINDINGS

24. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

25. The operation of the impugned judgment was conditionally stayed

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 8 of 16

vide interim order dated 21.08.2025. The Appellant submitted that it has

complied with the conditional stay and, as of 02.02.2026, a sum of

Rs.19,48,286/- stands deposited with the Registry of this Court. This

includes damages for the period until January, 2026. A tabulation was

handed over in Court on 02.02.2026 to this effect, wherein the Appellant has

stated that it has continued to make deposits of the damages of Rs. 60,500/-

per month for each month thereafter also.

26. We may note, at the outset, that the Appellant, herein after service of

summons by the Trial Court, elected not to file its written statement and

consequently its right to file a written statement was forfeited, and its

defence was struck off by the Trial Court vide order dated 26.07.2024. The

Appellant has not challenged the said order in the memorandum of appeal,

and therefore, the said order has attained finality.

In these facts, the Appellant’s application CM No. 9092/2026 seeking

to bring on record additional evidence cannot be entertained, as its defence

stands struck off, and therefore, the application is hereby dismissed.

27. In the memorandum of appeal, the Appellant seeks to challenge the

impugned judgment based on the defences raised by Respondent No. 2 in its

written statement and on additional pleas which were not raised by

Respondent No. 2 in its written statement before the Trial Court. For

instance, the submission of the Appellant that the allotment of the suit

property stood transferred in its favour upon taking over business of the

proprietorship firm Jagdish and Company is a factual plea which was not

raised by Respondent No. 2 in its written statement before the Trial Court.

Once the defence of the Appellant stood struck off, the scope of challenge

available to the Appellant is confined to the record of the Trial Court i.e., the

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 9 of 16

documents and plaint filed before the Trial Court. The Appellant cannot be

permitted to circumvent the consequences of the order striking off its

defence by introducing additional factual and legal pleas [which are mixed

questions of fact and law] for the first time in this appeal.

28. In the present appeal, we shall examine the correctness of the

impugned judgment only on the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence

available on the record before the Trial Court. Since Respondent No. 2 is the

Managing Director of the Appellant, the defences raised by him in the

written statement shall also be considered.

29. On the pleadings of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the following issues

were framed by the Trial Court: -

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for eviction as prayed for? ....

OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.7,15,000/- as

prayed for? OPP

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest and if so, at what rate, at

what amount and for what period? ... OPP

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Decree of damages and mesne profits, as

prayed for? ... OPP

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent and mandatory

injunction, as prayed for? ... OPP

(vi) Relief.”

30. Issue No. (i) was significant as the Trial Court determined the fact of

the existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant as well as termination

of tenancy. The findings of the learned Trial Court are at paragraph nos. ‘8’,

‘9’ and ‘10’, which read as under: -

“8. The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his

examination in chief has proved on record documents showing that he has

been receiving rent regularly from defendant no.1 in respect of the suit

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 10 of 16

property. The TDS certificates form 26AS issued by defendant no.1 for the

year 2021-22 and 2022-23, Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 show that the plaintiff

regularly received rent from defendant no.1 in respect of the suit property

and tax was deducted at source by defendant no.1 on this amount. The

defendant no.2 has claimed that the plaintiff being director of defendant

no.1 manipulated the accounts. In this regard the written statement is

relevant. The WS shows that even as per defendant no.2, the plaintiff

resigned from the post of director w.e.f. 31.10.2018 and defendant no.2 was

vested all the powers being authorized signatory of defendant no.1. In these

circumstances, why the rent was continuously paid to the plaintiff even after

his resignation w.e.f. 31.10.2018 has not been explained by defendant no.2.

Defendant no.2 admitted in his cross examination that he is MBA from IMT

Ghaziabad, U.P. since 2002. It cannot be said that defendant no.2 is illiterate

and cannot understand the books of accounts. The rent was paid

continuously to the plaintiff till December, 2022 and the same clearly

proves that the plaintiff was the landlord of the premises as far as defendant

no.1 is concerned. It is settled law that a landlord is not required to prove

that he is the owner of the property. He is only required to prove the

relationship of landlord and tenant and the termination of tenancy. The

plaintiff has as such has proved that he is the landlord of the property.

Otherwise also allotment of the plot to Jagdish & Company by DSIIDC is

undisputed as well as that the plaintiff is its proprietor.

9. Further, PW1 has also proved on the record the audit sheets and balance

sheets of defendant no.1 for the accounting year(s) 2021-22 and 2022-23 as

Ex.PW1/14 and Ex.PW1/15. The same reflect that rent was paid to the

plaintiff for the suit property continuously under the head other expenses.

These were duly signed by defendant no.2 even after the resignation of

plaintiff from the directorship of defendant no.1. These documents further

proved the fact that plaintiff was the landlord as far as defendant no.1 is

concerned. In this regard, the documents filed by defendant no.2 are also

relevant. Defendant no.2 himself proved on record the allotment documents

of the suit property available on the website of DSIIDC. Ex.DW2/2 (colly)

filed by defendant no.2 shows that the plot on which suit property was

constructed, was allotted to the plaintiff for his proprietor ship concerned

Jagdish & Company. The statement of ground rent dues issued by DSIIDC

Ex DW2/4, is in the name of Jagdish & Company. Most importantly, the

balance sheet of defendant no. 1 shows that the property owned by it are

NIL. If the plaintiff merged all his properties in the properties of defendant

no. 1 as claimed by defendant no.2, then its balance sheet should reflect the

same. The balance sheet of defendant no.1, further strengthen the case of the

plaintiff that suit property was never vested with defendant no.1.

10. It was also argued for the defendant no.2 that plaintiff never received

any salary and always manipulated the record to show that he received the

rent. As already discussed, the plaintiff resigned as director of defendant

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 11 of 16

no.1 with effect from 31.10. 2018 when defendant no.2 took over the affairs

of defendant no.1. Even thereafter, rent was continuously paid to plaintiff by

defendant no.1. It clearly proves that suit property was let out by plaintiff to

defendant no.1. The plaintiff was required to prove the relationship of

landlord and tenant which has been duly proved. The tenancy was duly

terminated through notice dated 07.08.2023, Ex. PW1/12. Otherwise also

this suit itself is sufficient notice. The plaintiff was not required to prove

that he is owner of the suit property. Title of plaintiff is not relevant as far as

defendants are concerned. Defendant no.1 being a tenant has no right to

question the ownership of plaintiff. Non production of rent agreement(s) is

also not fatal to plaintiff’s case as tenancy can be oral as well and will be

month to month tenancy. In facts, issue no.1 stands duly proved by the

plaintiff. The issue is decided accordingly.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

31. In its written statement, Respondent No. 2 sought evidential proof of

Respondent No.1’s title the suit property. However, Respondent No. 2,

despite being the Managing Director of the Appellant, never pleaded that the

the suit property stood vested in the Appellant on the take-over of business

of the proprietorship firm. Considering that the Appellant failed to file its

own written statement, the Appellant cannot be permitted, for the first time

in this appeal, to raise a plea regarding the alleged transfer of leasehold

rights of the suit property from the proprietorship firm to the Appellant.

32. The Appellant does not dispute that the allotment of the suit property

was made by DSIIDC in favour of Respondent No. 1, as the proprietor of

Jagdish and Company on a leasehold basis. Jagdish and Company is a sole

proprietorship firm and has no independent juridical identity separate from

Respondent No. 1, and therefore, the allotment in the name of Respondent

No. 1 as the proprietor of Jagdish and Company, in law, has the effect of

making Respondent No. 1 the leaseholder qua DSIIDC. The said allotment

was proved by Respondent No. 2 through the production of documents i.e.,

DW-2/2 downloaded from the website of DSIIDC.

33. Respondent No. 1 has duly proved that the Appellant has not claimed

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 12 of 16

any title rights in this suit property, in its balance sheets. This circumstance

is relevant and shows that the Appellant has never considered the suit

property as its self-owned asset. The Appellant is legally bound to make a

disclosure of all of its assets, including immovable property owned by it, in

its financial statements, and non-mention of the suit property evidences that

the Appellant has never considered itself to be the title holder of the suit

property. The Trial Court has rightly taken into consideration this admitted

fact.

34. Even otherwise, any transfer of leasehold rights in the suit property

from Respondent No. 1 as a proprietor of Jagdish and Company to the

Appellant would require the consent of the paramount lessor DSIIDC and

would have to be effected as per the terms of allotment and by following the

due legal process governing the transfer of immovable property. The

allotment of leasehold rights of suit property cannot be transferred from

Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant merely on the basis of an inter-se

understanding of transfer of business as sought to be alleged by the

Appellant.

35. The submission of the Appellant that the TIN and ESIC number of the

proprietorship firm Jagdish and Company has been transferred to the

Appellant and therefore the transfer of the leasehold rights should also be

presumed is without any merit. In our considered opinion, transfer of

business would have no bearing on the leasehold rights held by Respondent

No. 1 in the suit property. The transfer of TIN and ESIC number can only

lead to a presumption of transfer of business, but not transfer of leasehold

rights granted by DSIIDC in the suit property, which transfer can only

happen with the written consent of DSIIDC and in the manner prescribed

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 13 of 16

under the law, which would include execution of transfer document.

36. In addition, Respondent No. 1 has demonstrated from the documents

on record that the Appellant, in its books of accounts and financial

statements, recorded payment of rentals to Respondent No. 1 on a monthly

basis from 2011 until 31.12.2022 and also duly deducted and deposited TDS

on the rental payments with the Income Tax Department. The Appellant is

bound by the declaration made by it in its financial statements and its

declarations made to the Income Tax Department as regards payment of

rent. A corporate entity [such as the Appellant herein] cannot be permitted to

resile from the contents of the financial statements submitted by it to the

Registrar of Companies [‘RoC’] and the Income Tax Department, as the said

financial statements are submitted in compliance with the relevant statutory

provisions which entail that the said financial statements reflect the true and

correct affairs of the company. The reliance placed by Appellant on Section

47 of the Income Tax Act is misplaced.

37. The Appellant has also raised the plea in the memorandum of appeal

that the financial statements were manipulated by the Respondent No. 1;

however, the said plea was not proved by Respondent No. 2 during evidence

and therefore, cannot be accepted by this Court. This plea has rightly

rejected by the Trial Court.

38. Further, the submission of the Appellant that the transaction of lease

was contrary to Section 188 of the Companies Act would not have any effect

on the findings returned by the Trial Court under Issue No. (i) and the relief

sought in the suit, which pertain to eviction and payment of arrears of rent.

The Appellant has admittedly occupied the suit property, and since it is not

the owner of the property, it is liable to pay rent and/or damages for its use

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 14 of 16

and occupation. Moreover, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the only

shareholders and directors of the Appellant. Therefore, the knowledge and

consent of these two shareholders are evident from the record, and this lease

transaction is therefore not in violation of Section 188 of the Companies

Act.

39. In these facts, we therefore concur with the findings returned by the

Trial Court at Issue No. (i) that Respondent No. 1 and the Appellant had a

relationship of landlord and tenant, which was terminated vide legal notice

dated 07.08.2023, and the said findings therefore warrant no interference.

The said findings are duly borne out from the documents brought on record

by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as well as the admissions of Respondent No. 2.

40. The aforesaid findings of the learned Trial Court also establish and

fulfil the ingredients for the grant of a decree of eviction, namely:

(i) existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant,

(ii) the rate of rent is more than Rs. 3500/- per month, and

(iii) the tenancy has been duly terminated

All these ingredients have been proved by Respondent No. 1 in the facts of

this case, and therefore, the decree of eviction has been rightly passed by the

Trial Court.

41. With respect to findings on Issue No. (ii), the Trial Court held that

Appellant was in arrears of rent at Rs. 55,000/- per month from 01.01.2023

till 31.01.2024, which amounts to Rs. 7,15,000/-. The Appellant has not

addressed any arguments on this issue. The Trial Court observed that

Respondent No. 1, i.e., PW-1, had categorically asserted the relevant facts in

its evidence affidavit dated 05.12.2024 [at paragraph nos. 6 and 7], and there

was no cross-examination of the witness on this aspect. It also noted that the

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 15 of 16

payment of rent of Rs. 55,000/- per month till 31.12.2022 is duly recorded in

the financial statement of the Appellant for the financial year ending

31.03.2023. In our considered opinion, the said findings do not merit any

interference as they are based on the financial statement of the Appellant

itself.

42. The Trial Court at Issue No. (iii) awarded interest at 6% per annum

for pendente lite and future interest. The Appellant has not addressed any

arguments, and we find no ground for interfering with this award of interest,

which is reasonable.

43. The Trial Court at Issue No. (iv) has awarded damages at Rs. 60,500/-

per month w.e.f. 01.02.2024 for a period of three years and thereafter

increase of 10% from 01.02.2027 on the damages of Rs. 60,500/- and so on

and so forth. The rate of Rs. 60,500/- per month has been determined by

increasing the last paid monthly rent of Rs. 55,000/- by 10%. While deciding

this issue, the Trial Court declined the claim of Respondent No. 1 for

damages of Rs. 20,000/- per day. The Appellant has not addressed any

arguments on this determination of damages. We find that the rate of

damages fixed by the Trial Court is reasonable and requires no interference.

We also find no ground to interfere with the award of interest at the rate of

6% on the said damages.

44. The Trial Court at Issue No. (v) has granted a permanent injunction

restraining the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 from creating any third-

party interest in the suit property and granted a mandatory injunction to clear

all dues mentioned in paragraph ‘18’ of the impugned judgment. The said

reliefs are consequential and have been rightly granted. The Appellant has,

in any event, not addressed any arguments on this relief.

RFA(COMM) 487/2025 Page 16 of 16

45. In view of the aforesaid findings, we find no merit in the grounds of

appeal. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court are upheld. The

Appellant and Respondent No. 2 are directed to ensure due compliance with

the reliefs granted and directions issued at paragraph nos. ‘18’ and ‘19’ of

the impugned judgment.

46. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount deposited by the

Appellant with this Court to Respondent No. 1 within two [2] weeks upon

Respondent No. 1 furnishing the details of its bank account to the Registry.

47. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed

of. The interim order stands vacated.

48. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official

website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated

as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No

physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MAY 29, 2026/rhc/aa