Kumar Jai Singh vs Neelima Thakur Since Deceased Represented Thr Her Lrs
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010172272023
+ FAO 114/2023, CM APPL. 23485/2023
and CM APPL. 42685/2023
KUMAR JAI SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Verma, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Aman
Varsha, Mr. Ashutosh Dubey,
Mr. Pratham Mehrotra, Ms.
Samriddhi Verma, Mr. Abhiti
Vaccher, Mr. Amit, and Mr.
Akshit Vachher, Advocates
versus
NEELIMA THAKUR SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED
THR HER LRS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arunav Patnaik, Ms.
Aanchal Tikamani, Mr. Mujadid
Gilani, and Mr. Vijay Mishra,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
11.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-04, Patiala
House Courts, in CS No. 57/2020.
2. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the application
filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) under Order XV-A read with
Signature Not Verified
FAO 114/2023 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC, whereby the defendant (appellant herein)
was directed to deposit the differential amount of Rs.26,70,849/-
towards occupation charges for the period from July 2018 to April
2023. The defendant was further directed to deposit on a monthly basis
charges towards future use and occupation for the period from May
2023 onwards till the possession is retained, with the condition that
while the charges for the period from May to December 2023 will be
calculated at Rs.1,18,871/- per month, the charges thereafter will be
calculated on the basis of escalation of 10% every 11 months.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in a nutshell are that the
plaintiff had filed the underlying suit for eviction, mesne profits, and
interest, pleading that she was the owner of the property bearing Flat
No. 198, Munirka Enclave, New Delhi 110067 (hereinafter referred to
as the “suit property”). A lease deed dated 23.12.2011 was executed
for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 01.01.2012 at a monthly rent of
Rs.47,500/- in favour of the defendant. As per the terms of the lease,
which were mutually agreed upon, the monthly rent was to be
enhanced by 10% in case of extension of the lease. The lease was
thereafter extended from time to time with corresponding escalations
in rent, and was lastly extended from November 2016 to 31.10.2017 at
a monthly rent of Rs.61,000/-. The plaintiff did not extend the lease
thereafter, as she was desirous of taking back possession of the suit
property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to vacate the
premises within 6-8 months, however, pressurised the plaintiff to sign
an amendment thereby reducing the rent from Rs.61,000/- to
Rs.50,000/-. On the assurance that the defendant would vacate the
Signature Not Verified
FAO 114/2023 Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
premises on 30.06.2018, the plaintiff agreed to the same, however, the
defendant did not keep up his promise and continued to remain in
possession.
4. The suit was contested by the defendant, wherein the factum of
lease as well as the enhancement on each extension was admitted. The
defendant, however, set up a defence that the plaintiff had agreed to
sell the property to him.
5. The Trial Court, on considering the pleadings and, specially, the
admission by the defendant of the lease deeds, directed the defendant
to pay the amounts as noted in paragraph 14 of the impugned order.
The same are extracted hereunder:-
“ 14. Accordingly, the defendant is directed to deposit the following
amounts in Court towards occupation charges for the period from
July 2018 till April 2023:
S. No. Period Amount of
Occupation
Amount
already paid
Differential
Amount
charges
(to be
adjusted)
1. July 2018 to
May 2019
INR
7,38,100/-
INR 67,100
per
month11 *
months
(Base
amount of
INR
61,000/-
with 10%
escalation)
INR
5,50,000/-
INR
1,88,100/-
2. June 2019 to
April 2020
INR
8,11,910/-
INR 73,810
INR
5,50,000/-
INR
2,61,910/-
Signature Not Verified
FAO 114/2023 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
per
month11 *
months
(Base
amount of
INR
67,100/-
with 10%
escalation)
3. May 2020 to
March 2021
INR
8,93,101/-
INR 81,191
per
month11 *
months
(Base
amount of
INR
73,810/-
with 10%
escalation)
INR
5,50,000/-
INR
3,43,101/-
4. April 2021 to
February
2022
INR
9,82,410/-
INR 89,310
per
month11 *
months
(Base
amount of
INR
81,191/-
with 10%
escalation)
INR
5,50,000/-
INR
4,32,410/-
5. March 2022
to January
2023
INR
11,88, 715/-
INR
1,08,065/-
per
month11 *
months
(Base
amount of
INR
1,00,000/-
(For March
2022 to
April 2022)
INR
10,88,715/-
Signature Not Verified
FAO 114/2023 Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
INR
89,310/-
with 10%
escalation)
6. February
2023 to
April2023
INR
3,56,613/-
INR
1,18,871/-
per
month3 *
months
(Base
Amount of
INR
1,08,065
with 10%
escalation)
Not paid 3,56,613
TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT:
INR 26,70,849/-
”
6. As noted above, the defendant was further directed to pay future
occupation chares with enhancement of 10% every 11 months. During
the course of hearing, it has been informed that pursuant to passing of
the impugned order, the Trial Court has proceeded to decree the suit
under provisions of Order XX Rule 12 CPC, and RFA No. 193/2024
and SLP No. 22463/2026 challenging the same also stand dismissed
vide orders dated 05.06.2026 and 02.07.2026 respectively. It is
informed that the appellant has already handed over the possession.
Thus, the only issue left is the correctness of the impugned order and
whether the issue of assessing the occupation charges is required to be
sent back to the Trial Court for determination.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant
concedes to the aforesaid position, however, contends that the conduct
Signature Not Verified
FAO 114/2023 Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
of the parties would show that, though the lease deed(s) stipulated
enhancement of monthly rent by 10% every 11 months, the said
stipulation was not consistently acted upon. He submits that the lease
rents were not enhanced strictly at the rate of 10% and, at times, the
rent was decreased. He specifically refers to the amendment wherein
lease rent was brought down from Rs.61,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per
month.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, on the other hand,
submits that neither the lease nor its contents were denied by the
defendant. The plaintiff has categorically pleaded that, on the
assurance of the defendant that he would vacate the premises by
30.06.2018, the monthly lease rent in peculiar circumstances was
agreed to be Rs.50,000/-. He submits that the concession was one-time
and limited to the aforesaid extent.
9. A perusal of the amendment agreement would show that the
same was stated to be valid only from 01.12.2017 to 30.06.2018.
Though it is not res integra that mesne profits have to be assessed on
the basis of reliable and cogent evidence, however, in view of the clear
and cogent admissions, the defendant having been found to have
agreed to periodic enhancement of rent/user charges, the direction to
deposit use and occupation charges with such enhancement can be
made under Order XV-A CPC. A gainful reference can be made to the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Raghubir Rai Vs. Prem
1
Lata , where the Court has held as under:-
“ 25. We should however not be interpreted as laying down
1
2014 SCC OnLine Del 3045
Signature Not Verified
FAO 114/2023 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39
that Order XVA empowers the Court to, without evidence assess
mesne profits or to merely by taking judicial notice and without any
material on record, arbitrarily direct the defendant to deposit a
much higher amount then what he had been paying or had agreed to
pay. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in National Radio & Electronic Co.
Ltd. Vs. Motion Pictures Association 122 (2005) DLT 629 laying
down that mesne profit have to be proved by reliable and cogent
evidence in accordance with law. Of course, if the erstwhile tenant /
defendant is found to have agreed to periodically increase the rent /
user charges, even if such contract may have come to an end, in
exercise of powers under Order XV-A of the CPC direction for
deposit with such increases can be made unless strong grounds exist
for such increases being not due. ”
10. Therefore, as already noted above, the defendant has not denied
either the execution of the lease deed(s) or their contents containing the
enhancement. The only submission made is that the 10% enhancement
was not always strictly followed. In such facts, this Court observes that
the suit need not be sent back for trial on assessing and determining the
mesne profits. The plaintiff shall pay the mesne profits as directed.
11. In view of the above, the impugned order is upheld and the
present appeal stands dismissed.
12. Considering that the appeal stands disposed of, the pending
applications, having become infructuous, are also disposed of.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
AUGUST 20, 2026
na
corrected and released on 01.09.2026
Signature Not Verified
FAO 114/2023 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
18:34:39