Court Upholds Earlier Judgment on Unregistered Lease Extensions and Denial of Mesne Profits Prior to 2012, Emphasizing Limits of Review Petitions
In a significant judgment delivered on September 10, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, dismissed the review petition filed by Raj Kumari Garg challenging the court's earlier ruling in a long-pending civil dispute against the State Bank of India (SBI). The case centered on the extension of a lease agreement, mesne profits, and interest claims related to the occupation of immovable property in Defence Colony Market, a prime commercial location in New Delhi.
The appellant, Raj Kumari Garg, had sought a review of the July 9, 2026 judgment passed in RFA No. 73/2023, which had rejected her claim for mesne profits from the inception of the suit in August 2008 until April 2012, and had also declined to award interest on arrears beyond December 31, 2017. Garg contended that the lease deed dated March 10, 2003, had expired on December 31, 2004, and that subsequent occupation by SBI was unauthorized as no registered lease extension was executed. She argued that the court erred in relying on unregistered documents-letters and an undertaking-to hold that the tenancy was validly extended until May 2012.
The court reaffirmed the legal position that under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any lease of immovable property exceeding one year requires registration. Unregistered documents cannot create a tenancy beyond one year and are only admissible for collateral purposes under Section 49 of the Registration Act. However, the court held that the reliance on the unregistered letters dated January 6, 2005, December 26, 2007, and the undertaking dated February 2, 2007, was justified to conclude that the tenancy was extended for five years, till May 2012.
Additionally, Garg's contention regarding the non-application of a 15% annual increase in mesne profits, as laid down by a coordinate bench in Anil Kumar Khanna v. The Indian Tourism Development (2015), was rejected. The court clarified that since the tenancy was extended till 2012, the claim for mesne profits for the period prior to that was not sustainable. Further, the discretionary power of courts under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to award interest was upheld, with the court stating that the absence of interest after property vacation could not form a ground for review without an apparent error on record.
Justice Krishna emphasized the limited scope of review petitions under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which can only be entertained upon finding an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient reasons. Mere re-agitation of the merits or disagreement with the court's findings falls outside the ambit of review. Since the appellant's grounds amounted to a challenge to the court's findings rather than pointing out any apparent error, the review petition was dismissed.
This judgment reiterates the judiciary's stringent stance on the registration of leases exceeding one year and the limited ambit of review petitions, providing clarity on tenancy and possession disputes involving immovable property in India.
Bottom Line:
A Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC can only be entertained on grounds of an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or any other sufficient reason. Re-agitating the merits of a judgment or challenging the findings of the court is beyond the scope of a Review Petition.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 114 CPC, Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, Section 107 Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 49 Registration Act, Section 34 CPC
Raj Kumari Garg v. State Bank of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975928
