RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 1 of 20

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 14.01.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 31.01.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 31.01.2026

+ RFA(COMM) 150/2023 and CM APPL. 36777/2023

M/S RITAS HERITAGE & ORS. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Arihant Jain, Adv.

versus

SANGITA GUPTA & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Mr.

Saurabh, Mr. Jitender Kumar,

Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.:

1. The present Appeal, preferred by the Appellants, assails the

correctness of the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2023 [hereinafter

referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’] passed by learned Commercial

Court whereby the Commercial Court partly decreed the suit for

recovery filed by the Respondents [Plaintiffs before the Commercial

Court] and awarded a sum of Rs.3,90,163/- along with interest @ 6%

per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization, with costs.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeal

is whether the Commercial Court committed any error of law,

perversity, or infirmity in appreciation of the pleadings and evidence

on record while partly decreeing the Respondents’ suit for recovery,

warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 2 of 20

jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

[hereinafter referred to as ‘CC Act’].

FACTUAL MATRIX :

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present

Appeal, it is necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts as they

emerge from the pleadings and the record of the case.

4. The Appellants were the Defendants before the learned

Commercial Court. The Respondents, who are the Plaintiffs in the

suit, are the joint owners/landlords of the property bearing No. 15-

A/59, built on leasehold Plot No. 59, Block No. 15-A, situated at

W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 [hereinafter referred to as the

‘suit property’].

5. The dispute between the parties arises out of a landlord-tenant

relationship. As borne out from the record, the Respondents had let

out the second and third floors of the suit property to the Appellants

under an unregistered lease deed dated 12.07.2017 between the parties

at a monthly rent of Rs.2,14,935/-, which was stipulated to be

enhanced to Rs.2,57,922/- with effect from 01.08.2018. The

Appellants had also deposited a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- as security

deposit, adjustable against any damages, repairs or arrears.

6. The Respondents instituted a suit for recovery being CS

(COMM) No. 73/2019 against the Appellants, seeking recovery of a

sum of Rs. 10,25,030/- along with pendente lite and future interest @

16% per annum, inter alia, on account of alleged unpaid rent,

electricity and water dues, and expenses stated to have been incurred

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 3 of 20

towards repairs and renovation of the suit property after the

Appellants vacated the same.

7. The Appellants did not file a written statement within the

prescribed period and were proceeded ex-parte by the Commercial

Court vide order dated 17.09.2019. A counter-claim was also filed by

the Appellants; however, the same came to be dismissed in default.

An application moved by the Appellants for setting aside the ex-parte

proceedings was also dismissed by the Commercial Court.

8. The Respondents led their evidence and examined three

witnesses, namely PW-1/Mr. Ajay Gupta, PW-2/Ms. Sangita Gupta

and PW-3/Mr. Sagar Gupta, who tendered their affidavits in evidence

and relied upon documentary exhibits placed on record. None of the

witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the Appellants.

9. After considering the pleadings, evidence and written

submissions of the parties, the Commercial Court, by the Impugned

Judgment, partly allowed the suit. While rejecting the claim towards

enhanced rent and restricting the claim of rent for loss of user to a

period of one month, the Commercial Court allowed the claims

towards electricity charges, water charges and a reduced amount

towards repairs and renovation, after making appropriate deductions

and adjusting the security deposit. Consequently, a decree for

Rs.3,90,163/- with interest @ 6% per annum was passed in favour of

the Respondents.

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 4 of 20

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

10. Contentions of the Appellants:

10.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants assailed

the Impugned Judgment on the ground that the Commercial Court

erred in partly decreeing the suit despite the Respondents having

failed to discharge the burden of proof in accordance with law. It was

submitted that the Impugned Judgment suffers from errors apparent on

the face of the record, improper appreciation of evidence, and grant of

reliefs which were neither legally sustainable nor supported by cogent

material.

10.2 It was contended that the Commercial Court gravely erred in

allowing the Respondents’ claim towards electricity charges. It was

submitted that the electricity bills relied upon by the Respondents did

not pertain exclusively to the subject property, i.e., the second and

third floors of the suit property. It was argued that the Appellants were

not tenants of the entire building and, in the absence of any floor-wise

bifurcation or meter-wise segregation, liability could not have been

fastened upon the Appellants. It was further submitted that some of

the bills related to periods beyond the Appellants’ occupation,

rendering the Impugned Judgment legally unsustainable.

10.3 It was further submitted that the Commercial Court similarly

erred in allowing the claim towards water charges. It was argued that

the water bills relied upon by the Respondents did not correspond

exclusively to the period of the Appellants’ tenancy and were not

supported by any evidence demonstrating consumption attributable

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 5 of 20

solely to the Appellants. In the absence of proof of exclusive liability

or proportionate assessment, it was submitted that the Respondents

were not entitled to recover the said amounts.

10.4 Assailing the award of damages towards repairs and renovation,

it was contended that the Respondents failed to establish that the

alleged expenses were incurred on account of any damage caused by

the Appellants. It was submitted that several invoices relied upon were

either inflated, unrelated to the alleged condition of the tenanted

premises or pertained to periods after the Appellants had vacated the

suit property. It was argued that despite noticing deficiencies in the

Respondents’ evidence, the Commercial Court arbitrarily allowed a

reduced amount without any clear evidentiary or legal basis.

10.5 It was further contended that the Commercial Court erred in

awarding one month’s rent towards loss of user. It was submitted that

once the Commercial Court rejected the Respondents’ claim for

enhanced rent and restricted the period of alleged loss, there was no

justification for awarding even one month’s rent in the absence of any

evidence regarding the date of reletting or proof of actual loss suffered

by the Respondents.

10.6 Learned counsel also assailed the findings of the Commercial

Court concerning the adjustment of the security deposit of Rs.

4,45,000/-. It was submitted that although a cheque towards refund of

the security deposit was admittedly issued by the Respondents, the

Commercial Court failed to draw appropriate legal inferences from

such conduct. It was argued that the issuance of the cheque

demonstrated that no subsisting claim towards damages or repairs

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 6 of 20

survived at the relevant time, and the subsequent stoppage of payment

could not retrospectively validate claims which were otherwise

unsupported by evidence.

10.7 It was contended that the Impugned Judgment suffers from

internal inconsistencies and contradictions, particularly with regard to

the findings on the date of vacation of the premises, inspection of the

property, and assessment of alleged damages. It was submitted that

these inconsistencies, evident from the Respondents’ own documents

and pleadings, undermine the reliability of the claims accepted by the

Commercial Court.

11. Contentions of the Respondents:

11.1 Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondents supported the Impugned Judgment and submitted that no

interference is warranted in the present Appeal. It was contended that

the Appellants were proceeded ex-parte before the Commercial Court

and failed to file a written statement or lead any evidence in rebuttal.

Consequently, the evidence adduced by the Respondents remained

unrebutted and was rightly relied upon by the Commercial Court.

11.2 It was submitted that the Respondents duly proved their claims

through oral and documentary evidence, including electricity bills,

water bills, invoices for repairs and renovation, and photographs

depicting the condition of the subject property after the Appellants

vacated the same. It was argued that in the absence of cross-

examination of the Respondents’ witnesses, the Appellants cannot be

permitted to assail the factual findings recorded by the Commercial

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 7 of 20

Court in Appeal.

11.3 With regard to electricity and water charges, it was contended

that the Appellants were contractually liable to pay the same during

the subsistence of the tenancy and until peaceful handover of the

tenanted premises. It was submitted that the Commercial Court

carefully scrutinized the bills on record, excluded inadmissible

periods, and allowed the claims only to the extent found justified.

11.4 In relation to repairs and renovation, it was submitted that the

Commercial Court took a balanced and reasonable approach by

disallowing several claims and granting only a reduced amount based

on the material placed on record. It was contended that the assessment

made by the Commercial Court was a discretionary exercise based on

appreciation of evidence and does not call for interference in appellate

jurisdiction.

11.5 It was further submitted that the Commercial Court rightly

adjusted the security deposit while computing the decretal amount and

awarded interest at a modest rate of 6% per annum. It was argued that

the Impugned Judgment reflects due application of mind and falls well

within the limited scope of interference under Section 13 of the CC

Act.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

12. The primary issues for determination in this Appeal are:

a. Whether the Commercial Court was justified in rejecting the

Respondents’ claim for enhanced rent for the period August to

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 8 of 20

October 2018;

b. Whether the grant of one month’s rent towards loss of user after

vacation of the suit property is sustainable;

c. Whether the Respondents’ claims towards electricity and water

charges were correctly allowed;

d. Whether the Respondents proved the expenditure claimed

towards repairs and renovation, and whether the assessment made by

the Commercial Court warrants interference; and

e. Whether the adjustment of the security deposit and computation

of the decretal amount suffers from any infirmity.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced

on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record. At the

outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of interference by this

Court in an appeal under Section 13 of the CC Act is limited. Unless

the findings recorded by the Commercial Court are shown to be

perverse, contrary to the record, based on no evidence, or suffering

from a patent error of law, appellate interference is not warranted

merely because another view may be possible.

14. It is also undisputed that the Appellants neither filed a written

statement nor cross-examined any of the witnesses examined on

behalf of the Respondents before the Commercial Court.

Consequently, the evidence led by the Respondents remained

unrebutted. However, as rightly observed by the Commercial Court

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 9 of 20

itself, even unrebutted evidence must withstand judicial scrutiny and

cannot be accepted mechanically if it suffers from internal

inconsistencies or is not supported by the surrounding circumstances.

15. In the above backdrop, the issues framed in paragraph no.12 are

taken up for consideration seriatim.

Issue No. (a): Claim for Enhanced Rent (August 2018 to October

2018)

16. At the outset, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant

portion of the said lease deed dated 12.07.2017, which reads as under:

“……………………

AND whereas the Lessors have agreed to give the said property entire

Second Floor and Third Floor, on rent agreed to the same on rent at a

monthly rent of Rs. 2,14,935/- (Rupees Two lac fourteen thousand

nine hundred thirty-five only) till 01.08.2018. The rent shall increase

@20% from 2,57,922/- (Rupees Two lac fifty seven nine hundred

twenty-two only) Exclusive of electricity, water and maintenance

charges.

NOW THIS LEASE DEED WITNESSETH AS UNDER : -

1) That the Lessors have given the said property on rent and the

Lessees have taken the same on rent at a monthly rent of Rs. 214935/-

(Rupees Two lac fourteen thousand nine hundred thirty-five only)

for the period of two years and after the expiry one year the rent shall

be increase@ 20% for two and three year, i.e monthly rent of the two

to three years shall be Rs. 257922/- (Rupees Two lac fifty seven nine

hundred twenty-two only) Excluding the electricity, water and

maintenance charges.

2) That the Lessors have handed over the physical vacant possession

of the said property to the Lessee, on the execution of this Lease Deed.

3) That the lessees shall pay the said monthly rent to the Lessors by 7

th

of each English Calendar month, in advance. The Lessees shall pay

the PDC for first year to the Lessors & after 6 months PDC in

advance.

4) That the Lessees shall pay the electricity and water charges as per

consumption alongwith maintenance charges to the concerned

authorities/Lessors. The Lift will be maintain by the Lessees and all

the expenses to run the lift will be borne by the Lessees.

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 10 of 20

5) That the Lessees have seen before occupying the said property that

all the sanitary, glass fittings (front side) and electric fittings and

fixtures are in good working condition and is satisfied that nothing is

broken or missing and the Lessees on vacating the demised property

shall restore the, in the same condition, subject to normal wear and

tear.

6) That the Lessees shall not sub-let, assign or part with the

possession of the aforesaid rented property, in whole or in part, under

any circumstances to any third party. However if the Lessees want to

change the name of the firm or want to make (P) Ltd. Firm in the

family only then the Lessors shall have no objection to continue with

the Lessees.

7) That the Lessee st1all use the said property as per rules and

regulations of the DDA/MCD or any other concerned authority &

should not carry any illegal activities in the premises.

8) That the Lessees shall comply with all the rules and regulations of

the local authorities.

9) That the Lessees shall always have a right to use the terrace for

maintaining water tank, generator, lift and can also use the terrace

for drying clothes. The Lessee shall maintain the terrace properly and

keep the terrace neat and clean at all times, failing which the right to

use the terrace shall be denied upon inspection by the lessor.

10) That the Lessees shall not carry out any additions or alterations in

the structure or otherwise under any circumstances.

11) That day-to-day repairs such as replacement of fuses and elements

setting light, etc. are to be carried out by the Lessees at their own

costs. However, the major repair shall be carried out by the Lessors at

their own costs and expenses.

12) That the Lessees shall permit the Lessors or their agents or

representatives to enter upon the demised property for inspection and

to carry out the repairs etc. at any time as and when necessary.

13) That the Lessees shall maintain and keep the said property along

with electrical wood and fixture in good working condition.”

17. The Respondents claimed a sum of Rs.1,28,961/- towards rent

escalation with respect to the second and third floors of the suit

property, computed at the rate of Rs.42,987/- per month for three

months (August 2018 to October 2018), on the premise that the agreed

rent stood enhanced from Rs.2,14,935/- to Rs.2,57,922/- with effect

from 01.08.2018.

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 11 of 20

18. The Commercial Court declined this claim primarily on the

reasoning that, as per the Respondents’ own case, the Appellants had

been asked to vacate the suit property in July 2018 and the Appellants

had agreed to vacate by 31.10.2018, and therefore, there was no

occasion to demand enhanced rent during the notice period. The

Commercial Court further observed that the lease deed dated

12.07.2017 was unregistered and, therefore, could not be looked into

for enforcing the clause relating to enhancement of rent.

19. Having carefully examined the record, this Court is unable to

concur with the aforesaid conclusion.

20. It is not in dispute that the Appellants continued to remain in

possession of the suit property beyond 01.08.2018 and, in fact,

vacated the premises only thereafter. The mere fact that the

Respondents had called upon the Appellants to vacate the premises in

July 2018, or that the Appellants sought time to vacate till 31.10.2018,

does not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the tenancy stood

terminated with effect from 01.08.2018. Admittedly, the Appellants

continued to enjoy use and occupation of the premises during the

period August 2018 to October 2018.

21. A plain reading of the lease deed dated 12.07.2017 makes it

manifest that upon completion of one year from the commencement of

tenancy, the agreed monthly rent of Rs.2,14,935/- was liable to be

enhanced by 20%, resulting in an enhanced rent of Rs.2,57,922/- per

month. The escalation clause was not contingent upon execution of

any fresh instrument, but was to operate automatically during the

subsistence of the tenancy. Merely because the Respondents had

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 12 of 20

expressed their intention to have the premises vacated, or had called

upon the Appellants to vacate by a future date, does not, by itself,

absolve the Appellants of their obligation to pay rent applicable for

the period of actual use and occupation. Having consciously continued

in possession of the premises beyond the initial one-year period, the

Appellants could not avoid their liability to pay rent at the rate

contractually applicable during such continued occupation.

22. Once it is accepted that the Appellants continued in possession

of the premises beyond the completion of one year from the

commencement of the tenancy, the liability to pay rent for such

continued occupation necessarily follows. The question then arises is

whether the enhanced rate of rent, as stipulated between the parties,

could be applied for the said period.

23. The Commercial Court appears to have proceeded on the

assumption that since the lease deed dated 12.07.2017 was

unregistered, the clause providing for enhancement of rent could not

be relied upon. This approach, in the considered view of this Court, is

legally untenable.

24. The issue is no longer res integra. In Siri Chand (Dead)

through Legal Representatives v. Surinder Singh

1

, the Supreme

Court has held that where a rent note or lease deed does not prescribe

a fixed term exceeding one year and operates as a tenancy terminable

on short notice, the mere presence of a clause providing for yearly

enhancement of rent does not render the document compulsorily

registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908. The

1

(2020) 6 SCC 288

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 13 of 20

Court further held that such an enhancement clause is contingent upon

the continuance of the tenancy and does not, by itself, convert the

tenancy into one for a term exceeding one year. Consequently, non-

registration of such a document does not render the enhancement

clause unenforceable, because the lease itself is not required to be

registered.

25. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

case, the lease deed dated 12.07.2017 ought not be treated as a lease

for a term exceeding one year merely because it contains an escalation

clause. The escalation clause operates automatically upon completion

of one year, and is enforceable so long as the tenancy subsists. The

continued occupation of the premises by the Appellants beyond

01.08.2018 attracted the contractual obligation to pay rent at the

enhanced rate applicable during such period of occupation.

26. The reasoning of the Commercial Court that the mere issuance

of a notice to vacate or the agreement to vacate by a future date, by

itself, disentitled the Respondents from claiming enhanced rent is

misconceived. Unless the tenancy had actually come to an end by

surrender of possession, the liability to pay rent, at the rate applicable

during the relevant period of occupation, could not be unilaterally

avoided.

27. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the reasoning

adopted by the Commercial Court while rejecting the Respondents’

claim for enhanced rent for the period August 2018 to October 2018

does not fully accord with the settled legal position governing

escalation clauses in tenancies continuing beyond one year.

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 14 of 20

Issue No. (b): Rent for Loss of user after vacation of the suit

property

28. The Respondents had claimed rent for the months of November

2018 and December 2018 on the ground that they were unable to re-let

the suit property on account of the condition in which the Appellants

allegedly vacated the premises. The Commercial Court examined this

claim in detail on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by

the parties.

29. The Commercial Court noticed inconsistencies in the

Respondents’ version regarding the date on which possession of the

premises was handed back by the Appellants. While the Respondents

asserted that possession was not delivered until 11.11.2018, their own

evidence demonstrated that the security cheque was issued on

02.11.2018 and that the Respondents had inspected the premises on

04.11.2018. In view of this evidence, the Commercial Court rightly

concluded that, at the very least, the premises were available to the

Respondents by 04.11.2018.

30. The Commercial Court further observed that although the

Respondents claimed loss of rent for a period of two months, no

documentary or other cogent evidence was produced to establish that

the premises were in fact re-let only after December 2018 or that

earnest efforts were made to re-let the same during the said period. At

the same time, the photographs placed on record indicated that the

premises were left in a condition requiring repairs and could not have

been immediately put to use or re-let without remedial work.

31. Taking an overall view of the evidence on record, the

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 15 of 20

Commercial Court granted compensation towards loss of user for a

reasonable period of one month, confined to November 2018, at the

rate of the admitted rent of Rs. 2,14,935/- per month. The grant of

compensation for loss of user for the said period is premised on the

Appellants’ continued occupation beyond the period of tenancy.

32. As noticed while dealing with Issue No. (a), on principle, the

rate of rent applicable during the relevant period of occupation would

have a bearing on the computation of compensation for loss of user.

However, as already noted above, this Court is not called upon to

revisit the quantification or rate at which such compensation has been

awarded. In the absence of any challenge by the Respondents, the

compensation awarded towards loss of user for the month of

November 2018, as determined by the Commercial Court, is

accordingly upheld.

Issue No. (c): Claims towards electricity and water charges

33. The Respondents claimed recovery of electricity charges for the

period September 2018 to November, 2018. The Commercial Court

carefully scrutinized the electricity bills placed on record and

restricted the claim to the period during which the Appellants were

found to be in occupation of the subject property. The Commercial

Court specifically allowed electricity charges for the billing periods

15.09.2018 to 12.10.2018 and 01.10.2018 to 10.11.2018, amounting to

Rs. 58,300/- and Rs. 2,99,080/- respectively. The Court excluded

periods beyond the Appellants’ occupation and allowed only those

amounts which were supported by documentary evidence.

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 16 of 20

34. The contention urged on behalf of the Appellants that the

electricity charges pertained to the entire building and not exclusively

to the suit property was not substantiated by any evidence. No

material was placed on record to demonstrate that the electricity meter

was common to the entire building or that the bills did not relate to

consumption attributable to the suit premises. In the absence of any

such proof, the Commercial Court rightly rejected the said contention.

35. With respect to water charges, the Respondents relied upon

documentary evidence showing unpaid water bills. The Commercial

Court noted that although the water bills initially reflected a higher

amount, the Respondents themselves restricted their claim to Rs.

17,845/- after adjustment. The Commercial Court accepted the

reduced claim as supported by the record and allowed recovery of Rs.

17,845/- towards unpaid water charges. This finding is based on

documentary evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity

warranting appellate interference.

36. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the Appellants,

and having regard to the fact that the Commercial Court itself

restricted the claims to the period of actual occupation, this Court

finds no perversity or error of law in the allowance of electricity and

water charges. The findings recorded by the Commercial Court on this

issue, therefore, do not warrant interference in Appeal.

Issue No. (d): Expenses towards repairs and renovation

37. The Respondents claimed that they had incurred expenditure

amounting to approximately Rs. 7,00,000/- towards repairs and

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 17 of 20

renovation of the building, out of which a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- was

stated to have been spent on the second and third floors constituting

the suit property. In support of this claim, reliance was placed on

invoices, receipts, and photographs depicting the condition of the suit

property after the Appellants vacated the same.

38. The Commercial Court did not accept the said claim in its

entirety. It correctly observed that expenses attributable to normal

wear and tear of the tenanted premises, including routine items such as

whitewashing and painting, are ordinarily to be borne by the landlord

and cannot be fastened upon the tenant.

39. At the same time, the Commercial Court took note of the

photographic evidence, which indicated removal of electrical fittings

and damage of such nature that could not be attributed to normal wear

and tear. The Commercial Court further noticed that the building

comprised four floors, namely the Ground Floor to the Third Floor,

and that the claim of Rs. 7,00,000/- pertained to the entire building.

40. Proceeding on a reasonable and pragmatic basis, the

Commercial Court deducted a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-

(calculated at Rs. 50,000/- per floor) towards normal wear and tear,

thereby restricting the admissible expenditure for the entire building to

Rs. 5,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, the Commercial Court

apportioned and allowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards repairs and

renovation attributable to the suit property comprising the second and

third floors.

41. This Court finds that the approach adopted by the Commercial

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 18 of 20

Court reflects a balanced and judicious appreciation of the evidence

on record. The assessment is based on reasonable estimation and

cannot be characterised as arbitrary, perverse, or suffering from any

patent error of law. No ground is made out for interference with the

said finding in Appeal.

Issue No. (e): Adjustment of the Security Deposit & Interest

42. It is an admitted position on record that the Appellants had

deposited a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as security with the Respondents at

the commencement of the tenancy. The Commercial Court has taken

note of the said amount and adjusted the same against the total sums

determined to be payable by the Appellants under the Impugned

Judgment.

43. The computation of the decretal amount, after adjustment of the

security deposit, has been expressly set out by the Commercial Court.

The Appellants have not been able to demonstrate that the said

computation suffers from any arithmetical error, legal infirmity, or

perversity warranting interference in Appeal. In the absence of any

challenge by the Respondents, this Court is not called upon to

examine whether any higher or additional amounts could have been

awarded.

44. Insofar as the award of interest is concerned, the Commercial

Court declined the Respondents’ claim for interest at the rate of 16%

per annum, finding the same to be on the higher side, and instead

awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of

the suit till realization. The rate so awarded is reasonable, equitable,

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 19 of 20

and in consonance with settled principles governing the grant of

interest. The exercise of discretion by the Commercial Court does not

call for interference.

CONCLUSION

45. Having carefully considered the submissions advanced on

behalf of the Appellants and examined the record, this Court finds no

merit in the present Appeal.

46. Although certain aspects of the reasoning adopted by the

Commercial Court have been examined hereinabove, it is material to

note that the present Appeal has been filed by the tenants alone. No

appeal, cross-appeal, cross-objections, or even oral submissions have

been made on behalf of the Respondents seeking enhancement of any

amount awarded or challenging the findings returned against them.

47. In the absence of any such challenge at the instance of the

Respondents, this Court is not required to examine whether the

Respondents were entitled to any higher or enhanced amounts than

those awarded by the Commercial Court.

48. The scope of the present Appeal is, therefore, confined to

examining whether the Impugned Judgment warrants interference at

the instance of the Appellants. Finding no perversity, illegality, or

patent error in the conclusions reached by the Commercial Court, this

Court declines to interfere.

49. Resultantly, the present Appeal is dismissed. The Impugned

Judgment is affirmed in its entirety.

RFA(COMM) 150/2023 Page 20 of 20

50. The pending application also stands closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

AMIT MAHAJAN , J.

JANUARY 31, 2026

jai/pal