ANEETA LEEKHA vs KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 27th March, 2025 + FAO 75/2025 & CM APPL. 18015/2025 ANEETA LEEKHA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Raman Gandhi, Adv. versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 18016/2025- (EXMP). 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application is disposed of. FAO 75/2025 & CM APPL. 18015/2025 3. The appellant is preferring this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”], thereby assailing the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 whereby the learned District Judge- 02 & Wakf Tribunal, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [“learned DJ”] has held that the dispute raised by the appellant is of a commercial nature and covered by Section 2(1)(c)(vii) read with Rule 2(1)(c)(xxii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [“CC Act”]. 4. No one is present for the respondent despite sending advance notice. Signature Not Verified FAO 75/2025 Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 1 of 6 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:28.03.2025 16:15:42 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has no hesitation in finding that the present appeal is bereft of any merits. 6. In a nutshell, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 32,24,803.96 Paisa from the respondent/bank and her case was that the respondent/bank was in occupation of basement and ground floor of the subject property belonging to her as well as her siblings pursuant to registered lease deed dated 18.03.2008, which stipulated payment of monthly rent of Rs.5,60,000/- to all the five lessors i.e. herself, her mother and three siblings and at the time of execution of lease deed a security deposit of Rs. 33,60,000/- w