High Court of DelhiCS(COMM)/1224/2025

Mahesh Vijayagopal v. Dedha India Hr Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & ORS.

2026-03-19Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna14 pages

$~7 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 1224/2025 & I.A. 28312/2025, I.A. 28313/2025, I.A. 4012/2026, I.A. 5593/2026 MAHESH VIJAYAGOPAL .....Plaintiff Through:

Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr. Vipul Kumar and Mr. Prajwal Tiwari, Advs.

Mob: 9811030089 Email: vipul@vklawchambers.com versus DEDHA INDIA HR SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

.....Defendants Through:

Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Mr. Ashish Garg, Mr. Govind Singh and Mr. Shivam, Advocates for D-1, 2 and 3.

Mob: 9711735601 Email: gargrajiv26@yahoo.co.in

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 19.03.2026 1.

When the present matter was listed before this Court on 24th February, 2026, the following order came to be passed:

"xxx xxx xxx 1.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff represents not only himself but also the interest of other co-owners of the suit property, i.e., bearing Flat No. 410, Prakash Deep Building, situated at 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, i.e., Mr. Rajesh Vijayagopal (his brother), Mr. Sanjay Vasu (his cousin), who is the son of the brother of his father and Ms. Sukunda Vasu (wife of late brother of his late father).

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

He has drawn the attention of this Court to the General Power of Attorney ("GPA") having been filed by Mr. Rajesh Vijayagopal, Mr. Sanjay Vasu and Ms. Sukunda Vasu, wherein, they have given their Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff herein. 3.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit of service to submit that other co-owners of the suit property have also been served.

This Court notes that the lease deed of the defendants has already expired on 31st May, 2016. Further, the rent for the last three years, till 31st December, 2025, has been deposited before this Court. 5.

Accordingly, it is clear that the defendants have no right, as such, for any further continuation of the possession of the suit property, as they had admitted the tenancy of late Mr. B.S. Krishnamurthy and Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy, from whom the plaintiff claims his right as Class-II legal heir. 6.

Accordingly, learned counsel for the defendants is directed to bring the key of the premises on the next date of hearing and the Court shall pass appropriate orders, in that regard, on the next date of hearing.

However, since other three co-owners are not before this Court, therefore, in order to secure the rights of the defendants, it is directed that the plaintiff shall file an Affidavit of Indemnity before this Court, thereby, indemnifying defendants from any future litigation or any claim by any of the co-owners.

Further, the plaintiff shall also file an affidavit clearly stating that he is acting on behalf of other co-owners, as well. 9.

It is clarified that any order that may be passed by this Court, in favour of the plaintiff, shall be subject to and keeping open the rights of the other three co-owners in the suit property. 10.

Let the requisite affidavits be filed by the plaintiff before the next date of hearing.

11.

List for consideration on 19th March, 2026.

xxx xxx xxx"

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit with regard to indemnifying the defendants and also stating that they are pursuing the present suit on behalf of the other co-owners, as well. The Affidavit of Indemnity dated 15th March, 2026 as filed on behalf of the plaintiff, is The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

reproduced as under:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

One of the co-owners, i.e., the brother of the plaintiff, Mr. Rajesh Vijayagopal, has also joined through video conference and he confirms the fact that the present suit is being pursued by his brother, i.e., the plaintiff on his behalf also, and that his interest is being taken care of. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff identifies Mr. Rajesh Vijayagopal, brother of the plaintiff.

This Court also takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the other co-owners, i.e., Mr. Sanjay Vasu and Ms. Sukunda Vasu, have also executed an affidavit each in favour of the plaintiff, authorizing the plaintiff to act on their behalf with respect to the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

suit property.

The affidavits of Mr. Sanjay Vasu and Ms. Sukunda Vasu are on record before this Court and filed as Document-18 of the documents filed by the plaintiff, along with the plaint.

The affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Vasu, reads as under: The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The affidavit filed on behalf of Ms. Sukunda Vasu, is reproduced as under:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no impediment in releasing the keys of the property in question, i.e., Flat No. 410, Prakash Deep The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Building, situated at 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, to the plaintiff. 9.

Accordingly, the keys of the premises have been handed over by learned counsel appearing for the defendants to learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff.

10.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that there is a notice affixed by the New Delhi Municipal Council ("NDMC") outside the said premises with respect to the property tax. 11.

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that any property tax with regard to the suit property shall be payable by the plaintiff and that there is no liability of the defendants in this regard. 12.

The aforesaid statement is taken note of.

13.

Learned counsel appearing for defendant further submits that at the time of the lease, a security deposit of Rs. 2 lacs had also been deposited. 14.

However, this Court notes the submission of learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the defendants have deposited the rent before this Court only for a period of three years, though the rent was stopped by the defendants from the year 2016.

15.

Considering the aforesaid submission, it is directed that the security of Rs. 2 lacs as deposited by the defendants, shall be forfeited by the plaintiffs. 16.

This Court notes that vide order dated 17th December, 2025, this Court had passed the following directions:

"xxx xxx xxx CS(COMM) 1224/2025, I.A. 28312/2025 (u/O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 CPC) and I.A. 28313/2025 (u/O-XXXVIII R-5 CPC)

1. Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants no.1, 2 and 3 seeks time to file written statement and reply(ies) to the applications.

2. Let the written statement be filed as per the prescribed statutory The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

time limits.

3. Mr. Garg has drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 9th May, 2025 passed in CS(COMM) 370/2025 wherein similarly situated tenants have been asked to deposit the rental amount towards the admitted rent for the last three (3) years within two (2) weeks.

4. Without prejudice to his rights and contentions, Mr. Garg submits that defendants no.1, 2 and 3 shall also deposit the admitted rent of Rs.60,078/- per month for a period of three (3) years within four (4) weeks from today.

5. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court.

6. The Registry shall keep the aforesaid amount in an interest-bearing fixed deposit.

7. An affidavit of service has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in terms of which defendants no.4, 5 and 6 have been served. However, none appears on behalf of the said defendants.

8. List before the Joint Registrar on 9th February, 2026.

9. List before the Court on 24th February, 2026. xxx xxx xxx"

17.

Thus, this Court is informed that the defendants have deposited a sum of Rs. 21,62,808/-, with the Registrar of this Court, which is towards the rent for a period of three years up till December, 2025. 18.

Accordingly, the aforesaid amount, as deposited by defendants, be released to the plaintiff, along with any accrued interest. 19.

The plaintiff/his authorized representative, is directed to approach the Registry of this Court for this purpose and make an application thereof. 20.

The Registry of this Court shall accordingly on the request of the plaintiff release the said amount to the plaintiff. 21.

This Court also records the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that though the keys are being handed over now, he forgoes any other rent against the defendants. 22.

Accordingly, the disputes between the parties stand resolved. No The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

further orders are required to be passed in the present matter. 23.

The present suit is disposed of.

24.

The pending applications also stand disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J MARCH 19, 2026 ak The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.