AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
RFA(COMM) 449/2026 & CM APPL. 46272/2026 & CM APPL. 49619/2026 (stay applications)
Dr. Shashi Kiran, ld. Senior Counsel appears for the Appellants and submits that her clients would like to explore amicable resolution and prays that the matter be referred to mediation.
This is objected to by the ld. Counsel for the Respondents. Ld. Counsel submits that since the year 2020, no rent has been paid by the Appellants. Ld. Counsel further submits that notice was issued on 22th July, 2026 in this appeal only for the purpose of giving reasonable time to Appellants to vacate the premises.
Since the ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant was appearing virtually, the matter was passed over to enable the Counsels to confer with their clients and make their submissions. After passover, the matter has been called again. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellants has not appeared.
Ms. Joshmine, ld. Counsel appears for the Appellants along with Mr. Sandeep Gupta and Mr. Pradeep Gupta i.e., the Appellants. They have been queried as to how much time they would require to vacate the premises as decree for possession has been passed by the Trial Court which this Court is not inclined to stay.
However, they merely seek an adjournment repeatedly and do not give any satisfactory answer. The Counsel who is present on behalf of the Appellants also is unable to make any submissions. This position is vehemently objected to by ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
The brief background of this case is that the Respondents had filed a suit before the Commercial Court being CS(COMM)No.434/2025, seeking possession, recovery of damages, mesne profits, permanent injunction etc. against the Appellants in respect of Shop No. 31 and 32 consisting of basement and ground floor (with terrace), each measuring 10 ft. x 20 ft. forming part of Khasra No.435, situated in Aggarwal Market, Molarband Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi. However, in the suit, the relief of damages/mesne profits had been given up by the Respondents, who are the owners of the subject shops.
The Appellants were inducted as tenants in respect of the subject shops in the year 1998, initially at a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-, and thereafter, the last paid rent was Rs.14,000/-. However, the Appellants are stated to have not paid any rent from April, 2020.
A perusal of the impugned order would show that the decree has been passed under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for summary judgment. Before the Commercial Court, the defence raised by the Appellants/Defendants was that a certain contribution was made by the husband of the Appellant in view of his close association with the owner i.e., Late Shri Ganga Saran. The Trial Court considered the legal position under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and came to the following conclusions:
“19.Coming to the factual matrix in hand, plaintiff has prayed for recovery of possession of shops in question against Defendants. The ownership of the plaintiffs is not denied by the Defendants. The same is evident from the written statement of Defendants, admitting the title document of ownership in the name of Late Mr. Ganga Saran and then the same being devolved upon the Plaintiffs. Defendants have admitted the title documents in the name of Late Sh. Ganga Saran and their being in possession since the year 1998.
20.The Written Statement besides being evasive, is not accompanied by· any document in respect of pleas taken by Defendants. It contains mere denials without specifying any reasoning as mandated u/O -VIII rule 3-A CPC. Clearly, the stand put forward by Defendants is unworthy of credence and the contents of plaint in such a situation are deemed to be admitted.
21.The plea of Defendants that they are in continuous possession since 1998 and have become the owners has to be rejected having no basis in law. Equally untenable is the plea that part consideration was paid out of the funds of Defendant No.1’ husband, who allowed Late Sh. Ganga Saran to have title deeds in his own name. The defence taken is· fanciful and sham and in the absence of any supporting record, Defendants have no real prospect of success. There is no issue in the present case which requires a trial and the court has no other compelling reasons to not allow the application of the Plaintiffs.
22.Having stated so, the Defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claims. There is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed off before recording of oral evidence.”
A perusal of the above paragraphs would show that the Commercial Court notes the ownership of the Respondents/Plaintiffs, which is denied by the Appellants/Defendants. It also notes that the denials in the written statement are quite evasive. Merely because the Appellants/Defendants have been in possession since 1998 of the subject shops, they cannot claim ownership rights. In fact, a perusal of the written statement shows that except giving complete denials in the written statements, the only plea set up is of an oral agreement, which is not supported by any documents.
In the said suit, the Respondents/Plaintiffs have clearly explained as to how the property devolved upon them. The Respondent No. 2/Plaintiff No.2 has also stated that he requires property for his own personal bonafide need for opening his own office.
Accordingly, the Commercial Court in the impugned order has come to the conclusion that no plausible defence has been put forth by the Appellants and that the Appellants have no real prospect of succeeding in the suit. The plea that the Appellants have become owners of the property has been held to be baseless and untenable. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by the Commercial Court in the following terms:
“26.Consequently, a decree for possession of shops in question i.e. Shop No. 31 & 32, consisting of basement and ground floor with terrace, measuring 10 ft. X 20 ft., situated at Aggarwal Market, Molarband Extn., Badarpur, is hereby passed in favour of plaintiffs and against Defendants. The Defendants shall vacate the premises within two months and hand over the vacant peaceful physical possession of the same to the Plaintiffs.
Rest of the reliefs prayed for in the plaint stand declined being not pressed upon.
27.Plaintiffs are also entitled for costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- against the Defendants.
Decree sheet be prepared in above terms. Pending applications, if any be also disposed off.
File be sent to record room”
The present appeal was listed on 22nd July, 2026, when this Court heard submissions on behalf of the Appellants and observed as under:
“14.Mr. Hasibuddin, ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submits that the Appellants/Defendants have been in possession of the subject shops since 1998 and have a reasonable prospect of success, as the Defendants were also working closely with the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents/Plaintiffs and had also invested certain amounts. Thus, it is their case that they have become owners of the subject shops.
15.Upon a query being put by the Court, the ld. Counsel fairly admits that there is no document to support the said plea.
16.Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal.
17.However, at this stage, ld. Counsel for the Appellants submits that some reasonable time may be granted to the Appellants to vacate the subject shops and hand over possession thereof.
18.He seeks time to obtain instructions as to the period that would be required by the Appellants in this regard.
19.Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to the next date.
20.Let Mr. Shalabh Gupta, ld. Counsel, who is appearing for the Respondents/Plaintiffs before the Commercial Court, be also informed of the filing of the present appeal.
21.Let the registry issue Court Notice to Mr. Shalabh Gupta, ld. Counsel on the following contact details:
● Mobile No.: 9818681699
● Email ID: [email protected]
22.Let the electronic TCR be requisitioned before the next date of hearing.
23.It is made clear that notice is issued to the ld. Counsel for the Respondent only for the purpose of giving reasonable time to the Appellants/Defendants to vacate the premises.”
As can be seen from the above order, after hearing counsel, the Court was of the opinion that since there was no document to establish any title to the suit shops. At that stage, ld. Counsel for the Appellant had submitted that some time may be given to the Appellant to vacate the suit property. Accordingly, limited notice was issued in the appeal for the purpose of giving reasonable time to vacate the premises.
Today, the Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties. The Appellants are also present in person. The only submission made initially by ld. Senior counsel is that the matter be sent to mediation. This was opposed by ld. Counsel for the Respondent. The matter was initially passed over to enable ld. Counsel for the Appellant to obtain instructions. After passover, the Appellants also appear in person and seek to make a submission that they have title to the shops. Despite repeatedly being asked as to how much time would be needed to vacate the shops, while ld. Counsel submitted that they would need one year, the parties in person refused to give any time to vacate.
Considering the overall conspectus that no payment has been made since April, 2020 and the Appellants do not wish to undertake to vacate within any reasonable period, this Court is of the opinion that no interim relief can be granted. Accordingly, the stay applications i.e., CM APPL. 46272/2026 and CM APPL. 49619/2026 are dismissed.
The Respondents are free to execute the impugned judgment/decree.
At this stage, adjournment is sought by the Appellants. Accordingly, list the appeal on 07th December, 2026.