Disposed¶7

Ashwani Bajaj through Lr Seema Bajaj v. Sushil Sachdeva & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Apr 2026RFA/259/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFA 259/2023; Ashwani Bajaj (through LR Seema Bajaj) v. Sushil Sachdeva & Anr.; High Court of Delhi; Justice Neena Bansal Krishna; order dated 15.04.2026; Regular First Appeal Section 96 Order XLI Rule 1 CPC; decree for possession dated 05.07.2022; suit premises A-21/11 Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II New Delhi; vacation date 15.03.2020; undertaking dated 12.02.2020; execution; mesne profits; arrears of rent; electricity bills; evidence before Trial Court; appeal disposed; CM APPL. 15712/2023 stay disposed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; both parties left free to lead evidence on the date of vacating the premises before the learned Trial Court; pending application (CM APPL. 15712/2023, stay) also stands disposed of. ¶7

Ashwani Bajaj through Lr Seema Bajaj Vs Sushil Sachdeva & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

On what date was the suit premises (A-21/11, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi) vacated — whether voluntarily by the tenant on 15.03.2020 pursuant to his undertaking of 12.02.2020, or by the landlord taking possession through execution — the date being material for calculation of Mesne Profits and Arrears of Rent.

¶5

Court's answer

The Appellant does not contest the decree of possession; the only live dispute is whether the property was vacated on 15.03.2020 or possession was taken by the landlord through execution from the Court.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The Impugned Order contains no observation regarding the date of vacating the property; it deals merely with possession, which has admittedly been received by the landlords.

¶6

Key takeaways

As the date of vacation is significant for calculation of Mesne Profits, Arrears of Rent etc., both parties are at liberty to lead evidence on that question before the learned Trial Court where the matter is still pending.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Neena Bansal Krishna, J.), order dated 15.04.2026 in RFA 259/2023 — a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC filed by Ashwani Bajaj (through L/R Seema Bajaj) against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2022 passing a decree for possession of A-21/11, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi against him as tenant, in favour of Sushil Sachdeva & Anr. The Appellant did not contest the possession decree; the sole dispute was whether he vacated on 15.03.2020 pursuant to his undertaking of 12.02.2020 (the landlord allegedly refusing possession until electricity bills and March 2020 rent were cleared) or possession was obtained by the landlord through execution — a question material to calculation of mesne profits and arrears of rent. Holding that the impugned order contained no observation on the date of vacation and dealt only with possession admittedly received by the landlords, the Court left both parties free to lead evidence before the Trial Court, where the suit remains pending, and disposed of the appeal along with the pending stay application (CM APPL. 15712/2023).

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RFA 259/2023, CM APPL. 15712/2023 (stay)

¶4

ASHWANI BAJAJ THROUGH LR SEEMA BAJAJ.....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar and Mr. Mantosh Kumar, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SUSHIL SACHDEVA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Chaudhary, Ms. Sabia Malik, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma and Mr. Milan Garg, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 15.04.2026

¶12

RFA 259/2023

¶13

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ ) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment and decree dated 05.07.2022 whereby a Decree for Possession, has been passed against the Appellant/tenant in respect of the Suit Premises i.e. A-21/11, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi.

¶14

The Appellant submits that he had vacated the Property on 15.03.2020 pursuant to his undertaking given in the Court on 12.02.2020. The Appellant had removed his machinery but the Respondent/landlord refused to take the possession on the ground that the electricity bills and the rent of March, 2020, be first cleared.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that since the Respondents

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:28:32

¶18

were not willing to take with the possession, he had removed all his belongings and vacated the premises on 15.03.2020.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Respondents/landlord has disputed this fact.

¶20

The present challenge is to the decree dated 05.07.2022, which is in respect of the possession. The Appellant is not contesting the decree of possession except that there is a dispute of whether the Property got vacated on 15.03.2020 or it was taken by the landlord/Respondent, through execution from the Court. The controversy opened when the premises was vacated is significant, relevant for the purpose of calculation of Mesne Profits, Arrears of Rent etc.

¶21

Both the parties are at liberty to lead their evidence in this regard before the learned Trial Court where the matter is still pending. It is further observed that there is no observation in the Impugned Order in regard to the date of vacating the Property. It is merely in respect of the possession, which has admittedly been received by the landlords.

¶22

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. The pending Application also stands disposed of.

¶23

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶24

APRIL 15, 2026/RS

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:28:32

Ashwani Bajaj through Lr Seema Bajaj v. Sushil Sachdeva & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Bajaj through Lr Seema Bajaj v. Sushil Sachdeva & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gulshan Khurana Vs Manju Monga

Promodome Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nehru Yuva Kendra Sanghathan

Sh. Jatin Khatri Vs Sh. Shyam Pahuja & Anr.

Amit Verma Vs Edward Barua @ Edward Barwa

Bipin Kumar Vs Lakshmi Chhabra

Smt. Laxmi Rawat & Anr. Vs Sh.Daulat Singh Bisht