Delhi High Court Rejects Landlord’s Review Seeking Higher Mesne Profits; Holds Five-Year Tenancy Extension, Interest and Compensation Findings Cannot Be Reopened Without Apparent Error
Delhi High Court Rejects Review Against SBI in Defence Colony Lease Dispute; Says Findings on Tenancy Extension and Mesne Profits Cannot Be Re-Argued
Facts
The review petition was filed by Raj Kumari Garg against State Bank of India, seeking review of the Delhi High Court’s earlier judgment dated 9 July 2026 in RFA No. 73/2023. The review was filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
The underlying dispute concerned SBI’s occupation of premises in Defence Colony Market, New Delhi. The original Lease Deed dated 10 March 2003 had expired on 31 December 2004. The landlord’s case was that, after expiry of the registered lease, there was no further registered instrument capable of creating or extending a long-term tenancy.
In the earlier appellate judgment, however, the High Court had relied upon letters dated 6 January 2005 and 26 December 2007, read with an Undertaking dated 2 February 2007, in concluding that SBI’s occupation continued to remain authorised until around May 2012.
The landlord had served a notice dated 9 May 2008, terminating the tenancy with effect from 1 June 2008, and thereafter instituted the suit for possession and mesne profits on 11 August 2008.
The review petition therefore sought, in substance, reconsideration of three components of the earlier judgment: denial of mesne profits between August 2008 and April 2012; non-application of a 15% enhancement in mesne profits for that period; and denial of further interest on arrears after SBI vacated the premises on 31 December 2017.
Issues
The principal issue was whether any of these findings constituted an “error apparent on the face of the record” within Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
The Court had to determine whether the landlord’s challenge to the five-year extension of SBI’s tenancy could be reconsidered in review; whether the alleged failure to grant mesne profits and 15% enhancement from 2008 warranted review; and whether the discretionary determination concerning interest under Section 34 CPC could be reopened.
Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments
Raj Kumari Garg contended that the registered Lease Deed expired by efflux of time on 31 December 2004 under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, after which no registered lease existed in SBI’s favour.
She argued that the unregistered letters and Undertaking relied upon by the Court could, at most, be used for a collateral purpose under Section 49 of the Registration Act and could not create a tenancy exceeding one year.
Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act required a registered instrument for a lease exceeding one year. Accordingly, she contended that SBI was merely a “tenant by sufferance” after expiry of the permissible period and that the month-to-month tenancy had in any event been terminated from 1 June 2008.
The appellant further contended that the Undertaking dated 2 February 2007 could not be construed as binding her to a five-year tenancy until May 2012 merely because she had taken a ₹25 lakh loan under the Rent Scheme.
Claim for 15% Enhancement
The second review ground relied upon Anil Kumar Khanna & Ors. v. The Indian Tourism Development, in which a Coordinate Bench had recognised a 15% annual enhancement of rent in appropriate prime commercial locations.
The landlord argued that the suit premises were located in Defence Colony Market, a prime commercial location, and that the earlier judgment had failed to apply this principle.
According to her, the Trial Court had already determined market mesne profits at ₹163 per square foot with 15% enhancement thereafter. If SBI’s occupation became unauthorised from 1 June 2008, this enhancement should have operated from that date rather than only from May 2012.
Claim for Further Interest
The third ground concerned interest after SBI vacated the premises on 31 December 2017.
The petitioner relied on Section 34 CPC and contended that unpaid arrears of mesne profits continued to remain outstanding even after possession was handed over. She therefore sought interest on those arrears until payment.
Respondent’s Arguments
The judgment records no appearance on behalf of SBI in the review petition. The cause title expressly records “None” for the respondent.
The Court therefore decided the review by examining the petitioner’s grounds against its earlier judgment and the settled limits of review jurisdiction.
Analysis of the Law
Review Is Not a Rehearing on Merits
The Court identified the three recognised grounds upon which a judgment may be reviewed:
- Error apparent on the face of the record;
- Discovery of new and important facts or evidence; or
- Any other sufficient reason.
The Court found that none existed in the present case.
The central defect in the review petition was that each ground challenged the correctness of a finding already reached, rather than identifying an obvious or self-evident error in the judgment.
Five-Year Tenancy Extension Could Not Be Reopened
The first ground attacked the finding that SBI’s tenancy had stood extended by five years through the letters and Undertaking despite their unregistered character.
The Court rejected the contention as “completely fallacious”, observing that cogent reasons had already been given in the earlier judgment for holding that the tenancy stood extended.
Accordingly, the challenge went to the correctness of the Court’s substantive finding and was therefore beyond review jurisdiction.
Mesne Profits Before April 2012 Could Not Be Reconsidered
The Court similarly rejected the argument based on Anil Kumar Khanna and the proposed 15% enhancement.
The earlier judgment had already held that, because SBI’s tenancy stood extended for five years, the landlord was not entitled to mesne profits until April 2012.
The claim for enhanced mesne profits from August 2008 therefore depended upon first overturning that substantive finding on the tenancy’s continuation. That amounted to re-agitating the merits rather than correcting an apparent error.
Interest Under Section 34 CPC Is Discretionary
The third ground concerned the absence of interest after SBI vacated the premises on 31 December 2017.
The Court held that the award of interest under Section 34 CPC is discretionary. The exercise of that discretion in the earlier judgment could not simply be made the subject of a review petition because the appellant sought a different outcome.
Precedent Analysis
R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner relied upon R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of A.P., (1995) 5 SCC 698, while contending that after expiry or valid termination of the tenancy, SBI’s possession was essentially that of a tenant by sufferance and little different from that of a trespasser.
The Court did not reconsider the applicability of this precedent on merits because its earlier finding—that SBI’s occupation remained authorised pursuant to the five-year extension—could not itself be reopened in review.
Anil Kumar Khanna & Ors. v. Indian Tourism Development
This decision was invoked to support 15% annual enhancement in rent/mesne profits for prime and centrally located commercial properties.
The Court rejected the review ground not by disputing that proposition, but because the threshold factual finding remained that SBI’s occupation was authorised until April 2012. Thus, no mesne profits arose for the period for which enhancement was sought.
Lilly Thomas v. Union of India
The petitioner also relied upon Lilly Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 while challenging the failure to grant interest on unpaid mesne profits after SBI vacated the premises.
The Court nevertheless found no reviewable error because interest under Section 34 CPC remained a matter of judicial discretion already exercised in the underlying judgment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court treated all three grounds as attempts to re-argue the appeal rather than correct an apparent error.
First, the legality and effect of the letters and Undertaking had already been considered when the Court concluded that the tenancy stood extended for five years.
Second, the claim for mesne profits from 2008 and the consequential 15% enhancement necessarily depended upon overturning that very finding. Since the tenancy remained authorised until April 2012 under the earlier judgment, there was no basis for granting mesne profits for that period through review.
Third, the Court had already exercised its discretion concerning interest under Section 34 CPC. A request for a different exercise of discretion was not equivalent to an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Court therefore concluded that the petitioner was challenging the findings and observations themselves, which falls outside the narrow corrective jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of its judgment dated 9 July 2026.
It refused to reconsider the five-year extension of SBI’s tenancy, the denial of mesne profits until April 2012, the proposed 15% enhancement in mesne profits, or the determination concerning further interest under Section 34 CPC.
The Review Petition was accordingly dismissed, and the pending application was also disposed of.
The judgment reinforces the distinction between an appealable error and a reviewable error: disagreement with the Court’s reasoning or an attempt to obtain a different determination on merits cannot be converted into review jurisdiction merely by describing the finding as erroneous.
Case Details
Case: Raj Kumari Garg v. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: REVIEW PET. 365/2026 in RFA No. 73/2023
CNR: DLHC010023772023
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Reserved: 14 August 2026
Pronounced: 10 September 2026
Result: Review petition dismissed; no error apparent found in the earlier judgment concerning five-year tenancy extension, mesne profits or interest.
