VINAY KUMAR DATT vs SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 05.08.2025 + CS(COMM) 549/2021 VINAY KUMAR DATT .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Soayib Qureshi and Mr. Rishabh Dua, Advs. versus SHRI SUDHIR SACHDEVA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Hemant Chaudhri and Ms. Ranjan Vyas, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGMENT I.A. 15508/2022 (under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act and/or under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit) 1. The present application has been filed by the defendants under Order XIII-A read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 2. The brief facts as noted from the amended plaint are that the plaintiff no.l is a senior citizen and landlord of the property being 29, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110008 [hereinafter, ‗suit premises‘]. It is averred in the plaint that father of the plaintiff no.1 had let out the suit premises to late Trilok Nath Sachdeva and Surendra Kumar Sachdeva vide lease agreement dated 10.12.1968 on a monthly rent of Rs.1450/-. 3. It is further averred that the said premises was let out for the purpose of running a college. It is the case of the plaintiffs that since May 2020 the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 549/2021 Page 1 of 22 By:DEEPAK SINGH Signing Date:06.08.2025 06:20:02 defendant no.1 has failed to pay the rent. Thus, the arrears of rent as on date of filing of the present suit comes to Rs.14,99,994/-. 4. It is stated that when the suit premises was let out to the defendants, it was without unauthorized construction, encroachment and alteration. However, the defendants have altered the suit premises without intimation to the plaintiffs. Resultantly, L&DO had marked and recorded the misuse/unauthorized construction and claimed dues p