RACHIT KATYAL vs SURESH KUMAR TANEJA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 11.12.2025 + RFA(COMM) 466/2024, CM APPL. 65537/2024 (Stay) & CM APPL. 65541/2024 (Delay of 27 days in filing appeal) RACHIT KATYAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bajinder Singh, Advocate. versus SURESH KUMAR TANEJA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satyam Thareja, Ms. Vasundhara Nagrath and Mr. Deepak Kumar Arya, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. The present Appeal, filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 18.05.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in case being CS (Comm.) No. 302/2022, titled “Mr. Suresh Kumar Taneja & Anr. v. Mr. Rachit Katyal”. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to in the same rank as they have been arrayed in the original suit. 3. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the suit of the Plaintiffs was decreed against the Defendant while granting the following reliefs:- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RFA(COMM) 466/2024 Page 1 of 5 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:15.12.2025 14:42:46 i. Sum of Rs. 5,51,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty-one Thousand only) as outstanding amount. ii. Simple interest @ 6% per annum on the outstanding amount, from the date of filing of the present suit till realization. iii. Costs of the suit. 4. The Defendant was inducted as tenant in the suit premises under the Lease Agreement dated 31.05.2019, which stands proved on record as Ex. PW1/1. 5. Clauses 2 & 16 of the aforesaid agreement are extracted as under:- “2. That the above said premises has been let out by the Lessors to the LESSEE on fixed and agreed starting