A Tenant Bank Left a Shop Without Power. The Landlord Sued for Five Years of Lost Rent and Got Nothing.

UCO Bank rented a 379 square foot shop in Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, from 1994. The power was cut in 2006 for electricity theft, and the bank moved out. The landlord got the keys in January 2008, found no power, and did not re-let the shop until April 2013. He sued the bank for ₹9,94,000 in lost rent. On 22 September 2026 the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of his claim. He had a way to restore power and did not show why he waited, he never proved the rent he claimed, and he had no evidence that he tried to let the shop at all.

The case

The appeal is RFA 634/2026, Girish Kumar Jain v. UCO Bank, in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CNR No. DLHC010292852026, heard by Neena Bansal Krishna, J. It was reserved on 29 July 2026 and pronounced and uploaded on 22 September 2026. The judgment runs to 20 pages and carries no neutral citation. It is an appeal from the District Judge's decree of 13 February 2026 in CS DJ No. 614969/16.

The facts

The shop is GF-3, Plot No. B-3/4, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Commercial Complex, Delhi. The facts below are from paragraphs 2 to 13 and 37 to 38.

• The tenancy. Let to UCO Bank from 12 March 1994 at ₹3,400 a month for five years, then extended from 12 March 1999 at ₹4,250 a month under a lease deed of 25 March 1998. The bank was to pay for electricity by meter reading to the supplier.
• The theft. The landlord's case was that the meter burnt out from excess load and the bank then drew power straight from the supply. NDPL disconnected supply on 9 March 2006 and raised a final theft bill of ₹2,59,672 (paragraph 48).
• The keys. The bank said it tried to hand over the keys on 31 August 2006. The landlord refused them because of the theft case, and the bank deposited them in court. He accepted them under protest and took possession on 25 January 2008.
• The re-letting. On 15 April 2013 the landlord let the shop to a new tenant at ₹27,000 a month, after drawing power from another premises where the meter stood in the name of his company, M/s G.B.S. Chits (P) Ltd.
• The claim. Filed on 10 July 2013: three years of damages at ₹24,000 a month, ₹8,64,000, plus ₹1,30,000 interest at 20%, a total of ₹9,94,000.

The court accepted that the theft happened and that the bank caused the disconnection. Paragraph 54 records that the bank settled the theft bill with TPDDL for ₹88,300 and a new connection was installed on 21 April 2016. The claim still failed, on three separate grounds.

Ground one: the landlord could have fixed it sooner

Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 says that in estimating loss, "the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience" must be taken into account. The court relied on two Supreme Court decisions, Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra Dwarkadas, AIR 1962 SC 366, and M. Lachia Setty & Sons v. Coffee Board, (1980) 4 SCC 636: a claimant must take all reasonable steps to reduce the loss (paragraphs 43 to 46).

Paragraph 42 put the burden on the landlord to show that the means of fixing the problem did not exist between 25 January 2008 and 15 April 2013. He did not. Paragraph 57: there was not a single document on when the company's connection was installed, its sanctioned load, any application to NDPL, or any technical obstacle. His evidence affidavit was "conspicuous by its silence" on these points.

On appeal the landlord said the company's connection came only in 2007 and its load was raised only in 2014 (paragraph 34). The court found no document for any of it. Paragraph 60: "The means to mitigate the damage was available to the Plaintiff".

Ground two: the ₹24,000 rent was never proved

Paragraph 62 applies Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442: damages must be proved "with reasonable certainty", measured at the time of the breach.

The only evidence of the rate was the April 2013 lease at ₹27,000. Paragraph 64: a 2013 lease "can at best evidence the market rate as prevailing on that date", not the rate in January 2008. And paragraph 65 notes that the landlord's own earlier suit against the bank, decreed on 24 August 2013, had fixed the market rent for the same shop at ₹27.50 per square foot, or ₹9,762.50 a month, for the period to 8 December 2006. No comparable lease, no property dealer's evidence, nothing showed a jump to ₹24,000 by 2008.

Ground three: no proof he tried to let it

This is the part every owner of an empty property should read. Paragraph 67: the landlord produced no advertisement, no listing with a property dealer, no correspondence with a prospective tenant, and no offer received and declined, for any time between January 2008 and April 2013. No witness said they had inspected the shop and turned it down for want of power. The court held that the fact the premises "remained vacant during this period does not, by itself," prove the vacancy was caused by the lack of electricity.

Paragraph 68 adds that this proof "is neither exacting nor formalistic". It is what links the wrong to the loss.

The appeal was dismissed (paragraph 69).

What it means for an NRI landlord

The bank caused the problem, and the landlord still recovered nothing. A claim for lost rent against a tenant turns on evidence the owner has to create, while the property sits empty.

The court named three gaps, and each is a record an owner can keep. Dated applications to the power company, showing what was asked for and when. Evidence of the market rent at the time the loss began, not years later. And proof the property was on the market: listings, broker emails, enquiries and the reasons they fell through. An owner abroad, with a caretaker or relative holding the keys, is the one least likely to have any of these by default.

The claim also took from 2013 to 2026 to fail. Our guide on what an empty flat costs its owner covers the cost of vacancy, and managing tenants from abroad covers dated inspections, meter readings and unpaid utilities. A claim on a specific tenancy belongs with a lawyer who can read the lease and the file.

FAQ

Can a landlord recover lost rent from a tenant who left the property unusable? Only on proof. On 22 September 2026 the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a ₹9,94,000 claim because the landlord did not show he could not have fixed the problem sooner, did not prove the rent he claimed, and did not prove he tried to re-let.

What is the duty to mitigate? The Explanation to section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 requires the means that existed of remedying the loss to be taken into account. The court held the landlord had a way to restore power and did not explain why he waited more than five years.

Does a later lease prove what the rent would have been earlier? Not by itself. The court held a 2013 lease at ₹27,000 a month could only show the rent in 2013, not the rent from January 2008 when the claimed loss began.

What proof shows a landlord tried to let the property? The court listed what was missing: an advertisement, a listing with a property dealer, correspondence with a prospective tenant, or an offer received and declined. It said this proof is not exacting.

Did it matter that the tenant caused the power cut? The court accepted that the bank's electricity theft caused the disconnection. The claim still failed, because the loss had to be proved and mitigated by the landlord.

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• Girish Kumar Jain v. UCO Bank, RFA 634/2026 with CM APPL. 42743/2026, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CNR No. DLHC010292852026, Neena Bansal Krishna J, reserved 29 July 2026, pronounced and uploaded 22 September 2026, 20 pages. The court's own PDF was downloaded on 26 September 2026, 680,857 bytes, sha256 2b50128e7010f7238f1e0267164bc22ae52c545d56994b4c6cd5e080bbd081d4, and read in full: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/NBK22092026RFA6342026_165723.pdf
• The judgment PDF carries no neutral citation, so none is given here.
• Murlidhar Chiranjilal, AIR 1962 SC 366, M. Lachia Setty & Sons, (1980) 4 SCC 636, and Fortune Infrastructure, (2018) 5 SCC 442, as the judgment above quotes them at paragraphs 44, 45 and 62. We did not open those reports ourselves.
• The shop's area is given as 379 square feet at paragraph 2. Paragraph 65 records that the earlier suit used a covered area of 355 square feet for the rent calculation.