The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, has dismissed a review petition filed by a landlord seeking mesne profits and post-vacation interest against the State Bank of India, ruling that challenging judicial findings on the merits of a dispute falls outside the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized that a review cannot serve as a disguised appeal where no error apparent on the face of the record exists.
Background of the Dispute
The review petition arose out of a judgment dated July 9, 2026, passed in Regular First Appeal (RFA) No. 73/2023. The appellant, Smt. Raj Kumari Garg, acting through her son and general power of attorney holder Deepak Garg, had leased a commercial property located in Defence Colony Market, New Delhi, to the State Bank of India under a Lease Deed dated March 10, 2003.
The original lease expired by efflux of time on December 31, 2004, under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Subsequently, two letters dated January 6, 2005, and December 26, 2007, were exchanged indicating an intention to extend the lease, alongside an unregistered undertaking dated February 2, 2007, executed by the appellant upon obtaining a loan of Rs. 25,00,000 under the Rent Scheme. The loan was repaid in May 2012.
The appellant issued a termination notice on May 9, 2008, seeking to terminate the tenancy with effect from June 1, 2008, and subsequently instituted a suit for possession and mesne profits on August 11, 2008. The premises were ultimately vacated by the bank on December 31, 2017. In its appeal judgment of July 9, 2026, the High Court determined that the bank’s possession remained authorized until May 2012 based on the unregistered correspondence and undertaking, thereby declining mesne profits for the 44-month period between August 11, 2008, and April 2012.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel raised three principal grounds for review:
- Incapacity of Unregistered Documents to Create Tenancy Exceeding One Year: The petitioner argued that under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered undertaking cannot create a lease exceeding one year or shield a tenant from eviction. It was contended that following the expiry of one year on February 1, 2008, and the issuance of the termination notice on May 9, 2008, the bank was reduced to a “tenant by sufferance” or trespasser. The petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of A.P. (1995) 5 SCC 698 to assert that the bank’s occupation was unauthorized and that treating it as authorized until May 2012 was an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Non-Application of Precedent on Annual Rent Escalation: The petitioner contended that the Court failed to consider the binding ruling of a Coordinate Bench in Anil Kumar Khanna & Ors. v. The Indian Tourism Development (decided on 17.07.2015), which recognized an annual enhancement of 15% in rent or mesne profits for prime commercial properties. Given that the trial court had assessed the market rate of mesne profits at Rs. 163 per square foot with a 15% escalation, the petitioner argued that non-consideration of this legal position denied her use and occupation charges from August 11, 2008, to April 2012, along with consequential interest.
- Denial of Post-Vacation Interest Under Section 34 CPC: Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lilly Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224, the petitioner argued that judicial discretion under Section 34 CPC must be exercised judiciously. The omission to grant interest on unpaid arrears of mesne profits from the date of vacation (December 31, 2017) until payment caused serious prejudice and warranted correction.
The Court’s Analysis
Evaluating the submissions against the established parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the Court held that all three grounds raised by the petitioner were impermissible attempts to re-litigate the dispute on its merits.
Addressing the challenge regarding the reliance placed on unregistered documents to recognize a five-year extension, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed:
“This contention is completely fallacious because cogent reasons have been given for holding that there was an extension of tenancy by five years. The ground so agitated is, in fact, a challenge to the finding of this Court, which is beyond the scope of a Review Petition.”
Turning to the grievance regarding the non-application of the Anil Kumar Khanna decision and the claim for 15% enhancement from August 2008, the Court reiterated that the underlying judgment had already addressed the entitlement:
“However, this again touches upon the merits of the Judgment, as it has been explained in the judgment that since there was an extension by five years, the Appellant was not entitled to mesne profits till April, 2012. Again, this ground essentially seeks to re-agitate the merits of the findings in the impugned Judgment and is beyond the scope of the Review Petition.”
Regarding the third ground concerning the non-award of interest after December 31, 2017, the Court observed that awarding interest remains within the statutory discretion of the court under Section 34 CPC, which cannot be converted into a subject matter of review.
Decision of the Court
Reiterating the statutory framework governing review jurisdiction, the Court concluded:
“The three grounds on which a Judgment can be reviewed are an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important facts or evidence, or any other sufficient reason. The grounds taken in the Review Application are beyond the scope of review, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. In fact, the three grounds are a challenge to the findings and the observations made in the impugned Judgment dated 09.07.2026 of this Court.”
Holding that there was “no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the impugned Judgment,” the High Court dismissed the review petition and disposed of the pending application.
Case Title: Raj Kumari Garg v. State Bank of India
Case No.: REVIEW PET.365/2026 in RFA No.73/2023
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: 10th September, 2026
