Delhi District Court
Bharat Agarwal vs Nmdc Ltd on 20 August, 2025
DLND010078632022
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL-03),
PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.788/2022
CNR No.DLND010078632022
In the matter of :-
1 Bharat Agarwal,
S/o Sh. Sharad Kumar,
R/o 147, BC Lines, Mall Road,
Opp. Head Post Office, Meerut Cantt.
Uttar Pradesh-250001.
2 Rishab Agarwal
S/o Sh. Sharad Kumar,
R/o 147, BC Lines, Mall Road,
Opp. Head Post Office, Meerut Cantt.
Uttar Pradesh-250001.
3 Sharad Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Prabhat Kumar Agarwal,
R/o 147, BC Lines, Mall Road,
Opp. Head Post Office, Meerut Cantt.
Uttar Pradesh-250001.
4 Dinesh Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Prabhat Kumar Agarwal,
R/o B-44, South Extension Part II,
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:53:14
+0530
CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 1 / 25
New Delhi-110049. ....Plaintiffs
Versus
NMDC Limited
Khanij Bhavan,
10-3-311/A, Castle Hills
Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500028.
Email ID:[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
Also at:-
PTI Building,
2nd Floor, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
Also at:
109-109A, First Floor,
Surya Kiran Building,
19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001. ....Defendant
Date of Institution : 16.09.2022
Arguments concluded : 23.07.2025
Date on which judgment pronounced : 20.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present commercial suit for
possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, interest and
damages against the defendant.
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:53:23
+0530
CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 2 / 25
2. Brief facts as epitomized in the plaint are that the plaintiffs
are owners of property bearing no. 109-109A, measuring
1670 sq.ft, First Floor, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kasturba
Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (hereinafter referred to as
‘suit property’). The defendant is a Government of India
Enterprise. The defendant rented the suit property on lease
from the plaintiffs’ predecessors in the year 1972. Plaintiffs
by way of civil suit CS No. 56333 of 2016 titled, ‘Sharad
Kumar v/s NMDC Limited‘ on 29.07.2011 had sought
eviction of defendant from suit property, which during its
pendency was compromised and pursuant thereto, a fresh
Lease Deed dated 28.08.2017 was executed between the
parties whereby it was agreed that term of the Lease will be
for a period of 4 years w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and defendant will
pay monthly rent @ Rs. 130/- per sq.ft for the area of the
suit property i.e. 1670 sq.ft totaling Rs. 2,17,100/- per
month.
3. It is stated that Lease Deed dated 28.08.2017 stood
determined on 31.03.2020 by efflux of time and defendant
paid the complete rent till 31.03.2020 to the plaintiffs in
proportion to their respective shares in ownership of suit
property i.e. 1/4th each. However, despite determination of
Lease on 31.03.2020, defendant continued to occupy the
suit property.
4. The plaintiff further claimed that vide letter dated
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:53:31
+0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 3 / 25
10.06.2020, the defendant gave notice qua its intention to
vacate the suit property on 31.08.2020 and through letter
dated 10.06.2020, defendant also asked plaintiffs to issue
‘No dues certificate’ that plaintiffs will have no further
claim in respect of suit property.
5. Though defendant paid rent w.e.f 01.04.2020 upto
31.08.2020 @ Rs. 130/- per sq.ft per month, plaintiffs vide
letter dated 20.08.2020 followed by Legal notice dated
28.08.2020 made a claim for occupation charges @ Rs.
310/- per sq.ft for period after determination of the lease i.e.
for period w.e.f. 01.04.2020. Thereafter, plaintiff no.2
visited the suit property on 31.08.2020 for taking
possession thereof from defendant. However, he found
extensive damages in the suit property which was in
violation of Clause 2.8 of the Lease Deed.
6. Plaintiff no.2, therefore, refused to take possession and
requested defendant to restore the suit property to its
original condition. Plaintiffs also vide their letter dated
01.09.2020 made the same request to defendant. It is stated
that thereafter, defendant did some repair works in the suit
property and plaintiffs took photographs of suit property on
08.09.2020.
7. Subsequently, in the meeting held on 11.09.2020, defendant
offered to pay occupation charges for the period from
Digitally
signed by
HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:53:38
+0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 4 / 25
01.04.2020 to 31.08.2020 @ Rs. 250/- per sq.ft per month
which plaintiffs reluctantly agreed subject to defendant
making complete payment within a week. Defendant did
not make any payment, therefore, plaintiffs’ acceptance of
defendant’s offer @ Rs. 250/- per sq.ft per month became
redundant.
8. It is alleged that defendant vide letter dated 06.10.2020
gave a reply to plaintiffs’ letter dated 01.09.2020 and legal
notice dated 28.09.2020 wherein defendant took a wrong
stand that they are handing over the suit property to
plaintiffs in same condition in which it was handed over to
defendant in year 1972. It is further alleged that vide
repeated communications exchanged between the parties,
the plaintiffs kept demanding possession of the suit
property subject to their claim of arrears etc, however,
defendant kept a condition requiring plaintiffs to issue No
Due Certificate and that the plaintiffs’ claim or any demand
was illegal. The plaintiffs lastly wrote a letter dated
03.05.2022 whereby plaintiffs made it clear that they will
not issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ being demanded by
defendant and requested the defendant to handover vacant
and peaceful possession of the suit property to plaintiffs.
However, despite receipt of said letter, defendant did not
handover peaceful and vacant possession of property to
plaintiffs and continued to occupy and possess the same.
Hence, defendant is liable to pay occupation charges/mesne
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:53:46
+0530
CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 5 / 25
profits for using the suit property w.e.f. 01.04.2020 till it
handovers vacant and peaceful possession at the prevailing
rate of rent/occupation charges in the area. As the defendant
failed to handover the possession of suit property, the
plaintiffs approached NDDLSA for pre-institution
mediation, however, defendant on its appearance, did not
give consent for mediation and consequently, non starter
report was generated. Hence, the present suit.
9. Pursuant to the receipt of summons, the defendant filed
written statement and claimed that suit was not
maintainable as there was no landlord-tenant relationship in
existence between the parties. Defendant had vacated the
suit property on 27.08.2020 and at the time of vacating the
suit property, the defendant had cleared all the agreed rent
in terms of unregistered lease deed dated 28.08.2017.
Defendant further averred that for this reason, the present
suit was not a commercial suit. Further, that the lease deed
dated 28.08.2017 was unregistered and executed between
plaintiff no.3 and 4, therefore, the plaintiff no.1 and 2
cannot maintain the present suit against the answering
defendant.
10. The defendant further averred that suit property was
initially let out to NMDC in the year 1973 which was
extended from time to time by the then lessors Smt. Kamla
Devi and Smt. Saroj Rani and last Lease Deed was
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:53:53
+0530
CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 6 / 25
executed on 28.08.2017 between the defendant and Mr.
Sharad Kumar (owner of 3/4th share of the suit property)
and Mr. Dinesh Kumar (owner of 1/4th share of the suit
property) i.e. plaintiff nos.3 and 4 respectively for period
from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2020 @ Rs.130 per sq.feet per
month. In the month of June, 2019, plaintiff no.3 through
his Advocate requested to share 1/4th of the rent with Sh.
Rishab Agarwal/plaintiff no.2 and 1/4th of rent with Sh.
Bharat Agarwal/plaintiff no.1 w.e.f. July, 2019. Defendant
further averred that as per Clause 4.3 of Lease deed dated
28.08.2017, the lessee had the option for further renewal for
any number of years, subject to enhancement in rent to tune
of 20% of last paid rent. The defendant in terms of Clause
4.3 and 4.4 of the lease deed, in the month of February,
2020, invited the co-owners i.e. plaintiffs to their office at
New Delhi for negotiation/finalization of rent and other
terms and conditions in line with existence lease deed i.e.
20% enhancement, however, plaintiffs did not agree.
11. Thereafter, due to outbreak of Covid 19 pandemic,
lockdown having imposed on 22.03.2020, the office of
defendant was closed and in June, 2020, a notice dated
10.06.2020 was served by the defendant to plaintiffs
informing that defendant will vacate the suit property by
31.08.2020.
12. The defendant further averred that suit premises was let out
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:53:59
+0530
CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 7 / 25
to NMDC in the year 1973 as a raw flat and in terms of
Clause 2.8 of the Lease Deed, the lessee was to restore the
suit property in its original condition. The defendant
restored the suit property in better condition than the
original condition as existed in 1973 and same was handed
over to plaintiff no.2 by way of authorization letter dated
30.08.2020. It was further averred that as an abundant
precaution, the defendant had taken photographs of the
premises as on 27.08.2020 by showing the exact condition
of the suit property on the day of handing over possession
to the plaintiffs.
13. It is the claim of defendant that since the plaintiffs did not
agree for renewal of lease deed, therefore, the defendant
rented another premises within the same vicinity. Defendant
further stated that on the one hand, plaintiff no.2 had visited
the suit property with the authorization letter for taking
possession of the suit property and on the other hand, with a
malafide intention, he issued a legal notice dated
28.08.2020 through his advocate asking user charges @ Rs.
350/- per sq.ft per month from 01.04.2020 and in the said
legal notice, the plaintiffs have admitted that the suit
property will be vacated by the defendant on or before
31.08.2020. The said notice was replied by Advocate of
defendant by reply letter dated 31.08.2020 in which it was
clarified that suit premises was vacated on 27.08.2020 in
terms of the advance notice dated 10.06.2020 and all the
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:54:06 +0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 8 / 25
rent upto 31.08.2020 have been paid by defendant and
received by plaintiffs without any objections. Thereafter,
defendant averred that plaintiff vide various
communication/notices made frivolous claims which were
replied by defendant with consistent stand that defendant
had vacated the suit property on 27.08.2020 in the very
same condition as it was handed over to defendant in the
year 1973 and further rent upto 31.08.2020 had been paid
by defendant which was received by plaintiffs without any
objection. Hence, it was prayed that suit be dismissed with
exemplary costs.
14. No replication to the written statement was filed by the
plaintiffs.
15. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by my learned Predecessor vide order dated
02.11.2023:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for occupation
charges of suit property for the period 01.04.2020
till 31.07.2022 from the defendant as prayed for in
terms of prayer (b), if yes, at the rate of 310 per sq.
ft. per month or at what rate? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne
profits/occupation charges with respect to suit
property, if so, at what rate and for what period?
OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for interest on
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:54:13
+0530
CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 9 / 25
decreetal amount, if yes, at what rate and for what
period? OPP.
4. Whether the relationship between plaintiffs and
defendant as landlord-tenant was ceased on
28.08.2020 and defendant handed over the property
to the plaintiffs on 28.08.2020 with due intimation?
OPD.
5. Relief.
16. Vide order dated 02.11.2023, Learned Predecessor of this
court appointed Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate, as Local
Commissioner for recording of evidence of the parties and
thereafter vide order dated 21.10.2024, Learned
Predecessor of this Court appointed Ms. Promila Kapoor,
Advocate, as Local Commissioner for recording of
evidence of the parties.
17. The plaintiffs to prove their case, examined Sh. Rishab
Agarwal, plaintiff no.2 as PW-1 who in his evidence by
way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A reiterated the averments made
in the plaint and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Plaintiff’s Letter dated 20.08.2020 along with original
postal receipts Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Plaintiff’s letter dated 03.05.2022 along with original
postal receipts Ex.PW-1/5.
3. Non Starter report Ex.PW-1/9.
18. The plaintiffs also examined Sh. Bharat Agarwal, plaintiff
no.1 as PW-2 who in his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW-2/A reiterated the averments made in the plaint and
relied upon the following documents:-
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:54:20
+0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 10 / 25
1. Eleven photographs of the suit premises taken on
31.08.2020 – Ex.PW-2/1 (colly).
2. Three photographs of the suit premises taken on
08.09.2020 – Ex.PW-2/2.
3. Certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence
Act in respect of above mentioned photographs –
Ex.PW-2/3.
4. Email dated 11.10.2021 – Ex.PW-2/4
5. Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act and Declaration under Order 11 Rule 6 (3) CPC in
support of an email dated 11.10.2021 – Ex.PW-2/5 and
Ex.PW-2/6 respectively.
19. The plaintiffs further examined Ms. Lalita Arora,
summoned witness as PW-3 and Sh. Jitender Singh Rawat,
Section Officer, Directorate of Public Grievance, office at
Jeevan Vihar Building, Patel Chowk, New Delhi as PW-4.
Plaintiffs also examined Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Estate Manager,
Surya Kiran Maintenance Society (Regd.), Surya Kiran
Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, as PW-5.
20. It is significant to mention here that no evidence was led by
defendant.
21. This Court in compliance of order
No./5/D-3/Gaz.1A/DHC/2025 dated 30.05.2025 of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi, took charge of this Court in the
afternoon of 31.05.2025 and proceeded to hear the final
arguments on 23.07.2025.
22. Pertinently, the entire case of the plaintiffs hinges upon
Issue no.4, therefore, it is being decided the first and the
Digitally
signed by
HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:54:37
+0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 11 / 25
same is as follows;
Whether the relationship between plaintiffs and defendant
as landlord-tenant was ceased on 28.08.2020 and
defendant handed over the property to the plaintiffs on
28.08.2020 with due intimation? OPD.
23. The present suit is a suit for possession, arrears of rent and
mesne profits sought by plaintiffs against the defendant
which is based upon Lease Deed dated 28.08.2017 Ex.D-1
executed between Sh. Dinesh Kumar/plaintiff no.3, owner
of 1/4th share of the suit property and Sh. Sharad Kumar,
plaintiff no.4, owner of 3/4th share of the suit property on
the one side and NMDC/defendant on the other side. The
Lease Deed Ex.D-1 was executed on 28.08.2017 and
duration of lease was w.e.f. 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2020 i.e.
for a period of four years. Vide the said Lease Deed Ex.D-1,
it was agreed that defendant will pay monthly rent @ Rs.
130/- per sq. ft. per month i.e. Rs. 2,17,100/- per month.
24. It is the case of plaintiffs that the Lease Deed Ex.D-1 stood
determined on 31.03.2020 by efflux of time and defendant
paid complete rent till 31.03.2020. However, despite
determination of lease on 31.03.2020, defendant continued
to occupy the suit property and paid monthly rent w.e.f.
01.04.2020 till 31.08.2020 @ Rs. 2,17,100/- despite the
fact that defendant became a tenant at sufferance w.e.f.
01.04.2020 and that the plaintiffs were entitled to
occupation charge @ Rs. 310/- per sq.ft w.e.f. 01.04.2020
as per their legal notice dated 28.08.2020 (Ex.P-6).
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:54:45 +0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 12 / 25
25. As per the claim of the plaintiffs, even though, the
defendant vide letter dated 10.06.2020 Ex.P-5, expressed its
intention to vacate the suit property on 31.08.2020, the offer
to vacate the suit property was conditional as the defendant
asked the plaintiffs “And also arrange to issue no due
certificate from you, that you have no further claims in
respect of leased premises”. It is the claim of the plaintiff
that since, as per Clause 2.8 of Lease Deed dated
28.08.2017 Ex.D-1, the lessee was to restore the suit
property to original condition (normal wear and tear, etc. as
mentioned in sub-clause 2.5 excepted) and extensive
damage to the suit property was found, plaintiff no.2/PW-1
refused to take possession followed by various
communications to the same effect.
26. Whereas, it is the defendant’s case that it vacated the suit
property on 27.08.2020 and placed a notice on the door
offering the keys to be collected from its new office and
that the entire claim of plaintiffs as set up by them was
false. The defendant asserted that possession was handed
over on 27.08.2020 and no charges beyond that date were
payable.
27. Therefore, in the nutshell while the attempt to hand over
possession and offer of keys by defendant is not denied, the
plaintiffs in the light of Clause 2.8 of Lease Deed Ex.D-1
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:54:53 +0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 13 / 25
dispute the legal effect and validity of the same. The
plaintiffs also do not dispute the fact of refusal by them to
take over physical possession of suit property. The fact that
the keys of the suit property remained in possession of
defendant till they were handed over on 23.05.2023 is also
not in dispute.
28. The record reflects that during the pendency of the present
suit, the plaintiffs had filed an application under Section
151 CPC before the learned Predecessor of this Court
seeking directions to the defendant to hand over the keys.
The said application was dismissed by order dated
21.04.2022, whereafter the plaintiffs preferred CM(M)
810/2023 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The
Hon’ble High Court while allowing the CM(M) 810/2023
vide order dated 15.05.2023 made some relevant
observations which are as under :-
“4. Mr. Kailash Pandey, learned counsel appears for the
respondent on advance notice and submits that the
respondent is agreeable to handing over the keys
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
respondent to raise before the learned Trial Court the
objection that, the mere handing over the keys now,
will not tantamount to an admission on their part that
they were in fact in possession of the subject suit
property from 31.08.2020 till date.
5. Mr. Tarun Singla, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner also submits that the acceptance of the
original keys are also without prejudice to his own
rights and contentions raised before the learned Trial
Court to claim that the possession was continuing
with the respondent till date and the ancillary
damages, etc. raised before the learned Trial Court.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the objections and
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:54:59 +0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 14 / 25
contentions of the respective parties are reserved.
7. Mr. Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioners submits that the Authorized Representative
of the petitioner will approach Mr. Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondent on 23.05.2023 at 4:00 PM
at 92, Old Chambers, Supreme Court Compound,
New Delhi, against a valid receipt.
8. Mr. Pandey, without prejudice, reiterates the stand
taken by NMDC that the possession of the property
was handed over to the petitioner on 27.08.2020,
which is disputed by the petitioner.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of
with no order as to costs.”
29. It is also an undisputed fact that as per the directions of
Hon’ble High Court, the defendant handed over the keys to
the plaintiffs on 23.05.2023.
30. In the gamut of the aforesaid facts, it can be safely deduced
that the central dispute between the parties pertains to the
date on which possession of the suit premises is deemed to
have been handed over by the defendant to the plaintiffs
and if the plaintiffs could have refused the possession of
suit property under the garb of clause 2.8 of the Lease Deed
Ex.D-1.
31. The Lease Deed Ex.D-1 on its bare perusal shows that the
duration of the Lease Deed is four years i.e. w.e.f.
01.04.2016 to 31.03.2020.
32. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act envisages that a
lease of immovable property from year to year or for any
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:55:12
+0530
CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 15 / 25
term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent can be
made only by a registered instrument. Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act provides that such a lease deed
which is unregistered shall be deemed to be a lease from
month to month terminable on the part of either lessor or
lessee, by 15 days notice. Consequently, in the absence of
registration, the Lease Deed dated 28.08.2017 Ex.D-1 is
clearly inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the
Registration Act, except for the collateral purpose of
proving the nature and character of possession of the
defendant.
33. Strangely, despite the fact that the plaintiffs claimed
possession and recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits,
etc. on the basis of this very Lease Deed Ex.D-1, they did
not produce the same. Instead, it was the defendant who
produced photocopy of Lease Deed Ex.D-1 which was
admitted by plaintiffs.
34. Be that as it may, in the judgment titled as M/S. PAUL
RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. AMIT CHAND
MITRA, arising out of petition for Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.15774/2022, it was observed that :-
34*.From the principles laid down in the various decisions
of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to
hereinabove, it is evident that:
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:55:19
+0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 16 / 25
1. A document required to be registered, if
unregistered is not admissible into evidence
under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be used
as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in
the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or
divisible from, the transaction to effect which the
law required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not
itself required to be effected by a registered
document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any
right, title or interest in immovable property of the
value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want
of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in
evidence and that to use a document for the purpose
of proving an important clause would not be using it
as a collateral purpose.”
35. Clearly, Clause 2.8 of the Lease Deed Ex.D-1 on which
heavy reliance is placed by plaintiffs is neither a collateral
purpose nor divisible from the Lease Deed Ex.D1 and is an
important relevant clause of the unregistered Lease Deed
Ex.D1. The scrutiny of the evidence led by the plaintiffs
reflect that the entire evidence of plaintiffs centered around
proving that plaintiffs were not mandated to receive
possession of suit property, when it was offered by
defendant as according to them the suit property was
severely damaged by defendant. And, the plaintiffs in terms
of Clause 2.8 were not obligated to receive possession until
the suit property was restored to its original. The evidence
of plaintiffs, in addition to the above, also concentrated
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:55:35
+0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 17 / 25
upon proving mesne profits on account of the claim that
defendant became a tenant at sufferance w.e.f. 01.04.2020.
36. In so far as the question, whether plaintiffs could have
declined taking possession of suit property despite Clause
2.8 of the Lease Deed Ex.D-1, not being a collateral
purpose, is concerned, the answer to the same lies in
Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act, which defines
rights and liabilities of Lessor and Lessee, in absence of a
contract or local usages to the contrary. Section 108 (m) of
The Transfer of Property Act provides that :-
“(m) the lessee is bound to keep, and on the termination of
the lease to restore, the property in as good condition
as it was in at the time when he was put in possession,
subject only to the changes caused by reasonable
wear and tear or irresistible force, and to allow the
lessor and his agents, at all reasonable times during
the term, to enter upon the property and inspect the
condition thereof and give or leave notice of any
defect in such condition; and, when such defect has
been caused by any act or default on the part of the
lessee, his servants or agents, he is bound to make it
good within three months after such notice has been
given or left”
37. On the plain reading of the aforesaid provision, there is not
an iota of doubt that even if Clause 2.8 of unregistered
Lease Deed Ex.D-1 cannot be looked into, yet the
defendant was under a bounden duty to restore the suit
property in good condition. As already observed in the
preceding para that no evidence was led by defendant, the
defendant for the said reason failed to prove that the suit
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:55:42
+0530
CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 18 / 25
property was restored to its original condition. But,
“Whether the plaintiffs could have declined to receive
possession of suit property in the absence of this action on
the part of defendant is an extremely pertinent question
which will clinch the issue and consequently, the present
lis.
38. To answer this question, it is worthwhile to mention here
that it is an undisputed fact that vide letter/communication
dated 10.06.2020 Ex.P5, the defendant had in categoric
terms announced that defendant will vacate the suit
property on 27.08.2020 and had requested the plaintiffs to
take over the suit property on 31.08.2020 along with keys.
39. In A.C. RAMAN v. MITHAVALLY SEYDALI’S SON
VALIYAKATH KAITHAKKAL KUNHI BARA HAJI, AIR
1953 Madras 996, in similar circumstances, it was held as
under :-
“…The plaintiff, it must be stated, has misconceived his
remedy and by no stretch of imagination could it be said
that the plaintiff, who has refused to take possession when
possession was offered, could hold the defendant liable for
any rents after the lease was terminated and after the
plaintiff refused to take possession. The grounds alleged for
refusing to take possession by the plaintiff were that the
building was damaged and that until and unless the
building is repaired, the plaintiff is not obliged or bound to
take possession. Such a position seems to be wholly
untenable. When the lease has been terminated by a valid
notice as provided for under S. 111 of the Transfer of
Property Act and when possession has been offered and the
plaintiff had refused to take possession, it cannot be held
that the lease would still continue in favour of the
Digitally
signed by
HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:55:57
+0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 19 / 25
plaintiff…”
“In the present case it is not a case of any failure on the part
of the defendant to deliver up vacant possession of the
premises. On the other hand, it is quite patent that after
terminating the tenancy the defendant went to the extent of
offering the key of the premises and it was refused. And the
refusal is on the ground that the building should be put in
complete repair and then only the landlord would take
possession. Such a position taken up by the landlord is
wholly untenable. …There is nothing in this section to
compel the defendant, who has terminated the tenancy and
who has offered to deliver vacant possession and whose
offer has been refused more than once, to remain in the
premises until the premises, which a recalcitrant tenant
might have purposely or otherwise damaged, is put in a
state of proper repair. If he fails to comply with any
demand, however legitimate it might be, from the plaintiff,
the remedy of the plaintiff would be to sue for damages for
the neglect or default or other deliberate acts of the
defendant. The remedy that the plaintiff has chosen in this
case seems to be absolutely without any basis. The correct
law, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
has been laid down in – “Baliramgiri v. Vasudev”, 22 Bom
348 (D) and also in – Ábdul Qayum v. Mohammad Fazal
Azim‟, AIR 1937 Lah 121 (E). When once a proper notice
has been given and the tenancy has been properly
terminated the plaintiff‟s right would be not to question the
notice or the termination of the tenancy, but to claim
damages for any loss caused to the plaintiff by reason of
any willful negligence or default on the part of the tenant.
The learned Judges in the decision in 22 Bom 348 (D) have
considered the question as to what is to happen if
possession is not given after a valid notice. “Does it
continue the tenancy indefinitely, or does it give rise to a
claim for damages on the part of the landlord? The latter
appears to us to be its legal result.”
40. The aforesaid judgment was also referred to in the
judgment of H.S. BEDI VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAY
AUTHORITY OF INDIA, pronounced on 14.05.2015 by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, amongst other judgments and
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had thereafter summarized
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:56:06 +0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 20 / 25
the principles of law, arising out of similar situations as that
of the present case. The said principles are reproduced here
as under :-
“10. Summary of Principles of law:
From the analysis of the above decisions and the
provisions with which we are concerned, the following
principles emerge:-
10.1. Determination of lease – Section 111 of the Transfer of
Property Act provides various modes of determination
of lease such as determination by efflux of time
[Section 111(a)]; expiry of the period of notice of
termination [Section 111(h)]; express surrender
[Section 111(e)] and implied surrender [section
111(f)].
10.2. Obligations of the landlord and the tenant upon
determination of lease – The tenant is bound to
handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the
tenanted premises to the landlord upon determination
of lease [under Section 108(q)].
10.3. Duty of tenant to restore the tenanted premises -The
tenant is bound to restore the tenanted premises in the
same condition in which it was taken.[Section 108(m].
10.4. Remedy of landlord in the event of non-restoration by
the tenant – In the event of non-restoration of the
tenanted premises to their original condition, the
remedy of the landlord is to adjust the damages in the
security deposit or sue the tenant for damages after
taking over of the possession.
10.5. Landlord cannot refuse to take over the possession
upon determination of lease and offer of possession by
the tenant – The landlord, upon determination lease
and offer of possession by the tenant, cannot refuse to
take over the possession on the ground that the
property has been damaged or not restored to its
original condition.
10.6. Consequences of the landlord refusing to take the
possession offered by the tenant – In the event of
refusal of the landlord to take the possession offered
by the tenant, the possession shall be deemed to have
been delivered to the landlord and the tenant shall not
be liable to pay the rent thereafter.
10.7. Consequences of the tenant refusing to handover the
possession – If the landlord is ready to accept the
possession but the tenant refuses/fails to handover theDigitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:56:13 +0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 21 / 25
possession, the liability of the tenant to pay the rent
shall continue till the handing over of the possession.
10.8. Remedy of tenant in case of non-refund of security
deposit by the landlord – The tenant cannot refuse to
hand over the possession till the security deposit is
refunded. In the event of non-refund of security
deposit by the landlord, the remedy of the tenant is to
sue the landlord for refund of security deposit after
handing over the possession.
(Emphasis supplied)
41. Therefore, although Section 108 (m) of The Transfer of
Property Act casts a duty upon the lessee to restore the
property in as good condition as it was in at the time when
he was put in possession, the lessor cannot refuse to take
possession of the property when it is offered by the tenant.
PW-1 Sh. Rishab Agarwal in his cross-examination dated
19.03.2024 categorically admitted that the possession of the
suit property was refused on the ground that according to
PW-1 the suit property was in ‘torn condition’ and not
because the defendant demanded No Dues certificate. The
relevant portion of the cross-examination is reproduced
hereunder :-
“(The witness attention is drawn on Ex.P-5 at page 54-55
wherein it is stated that “we would request you to kindly
depute your authorized representative to take over the
premises on 31.08.2020 along with keys and signing the
joint memo to handover and taking over the quiet, peaceful
possession of the said premises.”)
Q.12 Have you taken possession of the suit property on
or before 31.08.2020?
Ans. On 31.08.2020 Mr. Abhijit Mishra of respondent’s
office took me to the suit premises. Two-three more
persons from respondent’s office were also there.
Aforesaid officers of respondent demanded No
Dues Certificate from us and said that upon
providing of no dues certificate they will hand over
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2025.08.20
16:56:20 +0530CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 22 / 25
the possession to us. However, the premises was in
very bad shape and in torn conditions and various
things were missing, therefore, I could not take the
possession. Further said, I was also not in a
position to give the No Dues Certificate.
Q.13. I put it to you that you deliberately refused to take
the possession of the suit property. What do you
have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
Q.14. I again put it to you that you refused to take
possession of the suit property because the premises
was in torn and damaged condition. What do you
have to say?
Ans. This is correct. There was a further demand of No
Dues Certificate from respondents, which we were
not in a position to give.
(The witness attention is drawn on Ex.P-7 at page
58 wherein it is stated that, “today I along with your
representative Mr. Abhijeet Mishra (Manager
Personnel) along with other person’s visited the
premises to take the physical possession, but on my
visit I saw that the premises in completely torn
condition. Photographs are enclosed (11 photos).
Therefore, I have refused to accept / take possession
of my premises in such torn condition and nor you
have settled my claim of your unauthorized
occupation of the premises”).
Q.15. Is it correct that you have not stated about the NOC
asked by the defendant ?
(Objected to on the ground that the question
pertains to the contents of a document which cannot
be asked during cross-examination.)
(This question is necessary as nowhere the plaintiff
stated about the No Dues Certificate and trying to
evade the answers).
(LC Observation: The objection is kept open and to
be considered by the Hon’ble Court subject to
objections let witness answer the question.)
Ans. It is correct.”
42. In the light of the aforesaid crucial discussion on law and
the testimony of PW-1, it is evident that the offer of
possession by defendant was made vide letter 10.06.2020
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:56:27
+0530
CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 23 / 25
Ex.P-5 requesting the plaintiffs to take possession of the
suit property on 31.08.2020, which was refused by the
plaintiffs. Hence, it is held that the possession of the suit
property is deemed to have been delivered to the plaintiffs
on 31.08.2020.
Issue no.4 is decided accordingly.
43. Findings on issue no.1 :
Issue no.1 : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for occupation
charges of suit property for the period 01.04.2020 till
31.07.2022 from the defendant as prayed for in terms of
prayer (b), if yes, at the rate of 310 per sq. ft. per month or at
what rate? OPP.
Regarding, occupation charges @ Rs. 350/- per sq.ft per
month from 01.04.2020, it was strenuously argued by
Learned Counsel for plaintiffs that since the Lease Deed
Ex.D-1 stood determined by efflux of time on 31.03.2020,
the defendant was liable to pay occupation charges @
Rs.350/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.04.2020.
Undisputedly, the Lease Deed Ex.D-1 was unregistered, and
consequently, a month to month tenancy which was
determinable by a 15 days notice by either party and
therefore, did not expire by efflux of time on 31.03.2020
but was surrendered suo moto by defendant on 31.08.2020.
It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the Lease was
terminated by the plaintiffs. Since, it is the admitted case of
the parties that it was only vide letter dated 10.06.2020
Ex.P-5 that the defendant expressed its intention to vacate
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
MALHOTRA
HEMANI
Date:
MALHOTRA 2025.08.20
16:56:35
+0530
CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 24 / 25
the suit property and prior to 10.06.2020 or 31.08.2020, no
notice to terminate the tenancy was issued by the plaintiffs,
the defendant was therefore not an unauthorised
occupant/tenant at sufferance from 01.04.2020 but was in
legal occupation of the suit property, until 31.08.2020.
Accordingly, it is held that plaintiffs are not entitled to any
occupation charges of the suit property w.e.f. 01.04.2020.
Issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of
the defendant.
44. Since the finding on issue no.1 is in negative, no discussion
is required on determination of issue nos.2, 3 and 5.
45. Suit of the plaintiffs is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by HEMANI MALHOTRA HEMANI Date: MALHOTRA 2025.08.20 16:56:43 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (HEMANI MALHOTRA) on this 20th AUGUST, 2025 District Judge (Commercial-03) Patiala House Court : New Delhi CS(COMM) : 788/2022 Bharat Agarwal & Ors. vs. NMDC Ltd. Page No. 25 / 25
[ad_1]
Source link