Rajiv Kumar vs. Jawahar Lal Vohra

Facts

The appellant, Rajiv Kumar, filed an appeal against a judgment dated April 26, 2024, passed by the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court had decreed a suit filed by the respondent, Jawahar Lal Vohra, granting possession of a shop in Karol Bagh, New Delhi, to the respondent. The decree also included recovery of arrears of rent at Rs. 50,000 per month and GST at Rs. 9,000 per month, excluding water and electricity charges, from April 2020 to May 15, 2022. Additionally, a decree for mesne profits was granted from May 16, 2022, onwards, with provisions for escalation. The appellant, present in court, sought time to vacate the property and offered a consolidated sum of Rs. 25 lakhs towards arrears, plus future rent, electricity, GST, and water charges from November 1, 2024, onwards.

Held

The High Court disposed of the appeal by granting the appellant time until April 30, 2025, to vacate the suit property. This was made conditional upon the appellant filing an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks, assuring that he would not create third-party rights or part with possession. The appellant was directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 25 lakhs towards arrears in three instalments: Rs. 10 lakhs by November 30, 2024, Rs. 10 lakhs by January 30, 2025, and Rs. 5 lakhs by March 30, 2025. Furthermore, the appellant was to continue paying mesne profits at Rs. 50,000 per month from November 1, 2024, along with electricity, GST, and water charges, on or before the 7th of every month until vacant possession is handed over. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, granting time solely based on the appellant's undertaking and proposed payment schedule. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commercial Court erred in decreeing possession of the suit property in favour of the respondent (Question of law and fact). The appellant argued that while aggrieved by the findings regarding rent payable from April 2020, he was willing to pay a consolidated sum to bring the matter to a close. The respondent, through counsel, accepted the appellant's offer. 2. Whether the appellant should be granted reasonable time to vacate the suit property and on what terms (Question of fact and mixed law and fact). The appellant requested time to vacate, and the respondent agreed to this subject to the appellant filing an affidavit of undertaking and making payments as agreed. The judgment does not explicitly frame these as distinct legal questions but addresses them through the parties' submissions and the court's final order.