Anu Manglani Vs Suresh Arora & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anu Manglani Vs Suresh Arora & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Challenge to the Order XVA deposit direction failed (petition dismissed); however, (i) liberty preserved to the petitioner to separately challenge, as permissible under law, the order dated 11.02.2025 releasing the deposited rent to the plaintiff, and (ii) the Trial Court clarified/directed to decide the pending Order XII Rule 6 CPC judgment-on-admission application in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the impugned order's observations; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order under Order XVA CPC directing deposit of rent is vitiated by error, illegality or perversity, given that the termination of the lease and the petitioner's claim of substantial improvements (with a counter-claim lodged) remain matters for trial. +2 more

Court's answer

The question whether the lease could have been terminated in the manner adopted is subject matter of the trial and has no bearing with respect to the impugned order passed under Order XVA CPC, particularly given the stands taken by the respective parties.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's claim of having made substantial improvements in the tenanted premises is also a matter for the trial and could not have delayed the decision on the application under Order XVA CPC.

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner has already lodged a counter-claim and admittedly continues to use the tenanted premises, there is no error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order.ratio¶22
The order dated 11.02.2025 (releasing the deposits to the plaintiff) is not under challenge before this Court; it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to action, as permissible under law, to challenge that order.ratio¶25
It is clarified that as and when the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is taken up and decided by the Trial Court, it shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations appearing in the impugned order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J., oral) - CM(M) 3661/2024, Anu Manglani v. Suresh Arora & Anr., decided 14 July 2025. The defendant-petitioner in a commercial suit challenged a District Judge (Commercial Court) order dated 04.09.2024 under Order XVA CPC directing her-side deposit of rent @ Rs.3,60,000/- per month plus GST and other applicable taxes from 01.12.2023 (within two months) and further monthly rent while the defendant remains in possession. Dismissing the petition, the Court held that (i) the question whether the registered lease deed dated 14.10.2021 could have been terminated as done, and (ii) the claim of substantial improvements in the tenanted premises, were both matters for trial and could not stall the Order XVA payment; and since the petitioner had already lodged a counter-claim and admittedly continued to use the tenanted premises (the directed rent already deposited up to the current month), the impugned order contained no error, illegality or perversity. The subsequent Trial Court order dated 11.02.2025 releasing the deposits in favour of the plaintiff was not under challenge; the petitioner was left free to assail it as permissible in law. The Trial Court was clarified to decide the plaintiff's pending Order XII Rule 6 CPC judgment-on-admission application in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned order (whose tentative character had been urged by counsel). Pending applications stood disposed of.

$~69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 14^th July, 2025

- CM(M) 3661/2024 & CM APPL. 61682-61683/2024 & CM APPL. 70550/2024 & CM APPL. 10236-10237/2025

ANU MANGLANI

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sushil K. Tekriwal and Dr. Mamta Tekriwal, Advocates.

versus

SURESH ARORA & ANR.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

Petitioner is defending a suit which is commercial in nature.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned District Judge (Commercial Court) under Order XVA CPC.

This Court has gone through such impugned order dated 04.09.2024 and since the execution of lease deed in question was not in dispute, after hearing arguments from both the sides, the learned Trial Court allowed the abovesaid application and directed the petitioner herein to deposit rent @ Rs.3,60,000/- per month plus GST and other applicable taxes from 01.12.2023 within two months. There is also a direction to deposit future rent on monthly basis till the defendant remains in possession of the tenanted premises.

The Court has gone through the lease date dated 14.10.2021 which is a

CM(M) 3661/2024 1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 6.07.2025 11:21:02

registered one.

Admittedly, the abovesaid rent has already been deposited by the petitioner herein, till the present month.

The question whether the lease could have been terminated in the manner it has been, is subject matter of trial and has no bearing with respect to the impugned order passed under Order XVA CPC, particularly, keeping in mind the stand taken by the respective parties.

Whether the petitioner herein has made substantial improvements in the tenanted premises and was entitled to claim such amount is also subject matter of the trial which could not have delayed the decision on the abovesaid application under Order XVA CPC. More importantly, the petitioner herein has, already, lodged counter-claim and since, admittedly, the petitioner continues to use the tenanted premises, there no any error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Learned counsel for petitioner, however, submits that, initially, the order was regarding deposit of rent in the Court but on the basis of one subsequent application moved by the plaintiff, the amount has been directed to be released in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 11.02.2025.

He submits that his right to assail the abovesaid order may be left open. 11. Said order dated 11.02.2025 is not under challenge before this Court and, therefore, it will be open to petitioner to take recourse to action, as permissible under law, to challenge the abovesaid order.

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also informed that the plaintiff has moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking judgment on admission.

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 3661/2024 2

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 6.07.2025 11:21:02

He submits that the observations made in the impugned order are tentative in nature and the learned Trial Court may consider the abovesaid application in accordance with law, without getting influenced by any of the observations appearing in the impugned order.

Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has also no qualm with respect to the abovesaid limited request. He, however submits that the abovesaid application could not be taken up by the learned Trial Court on account of pendency of the present petition and, since the present petition has been disposed of, the learned Trial Court may be requested to consider such application.

Accordingly, it is also clarified that, as and when, any such application moved under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is taken up by the Court and is decided, the learned Trial Court, it shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations appearing in the impugned order.

The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

The pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

JULY 14, 2025/ss/pb

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 3661/2024 3

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 6.07.2025 11:21:02