Background: Jaina Properties and Associated Companies
Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd. (and its affiliates like Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Jaina Properties & Finance Ltd.) is a New Delhi-based real estate developer. The group (founded by T.C. Jaina, later led by Rakesh Jaina) developed commercial complexes such as Jaina Tower-I & II in Janakpuri (launched mid-1990s) and other projects (e.g. “Vardhman Tower” in Preet Vihar). Rather than outright selling units, Jaina often granted long-term license agreements to buyers (licensees), deferring transfer of ownership. These license contracts typically required buyers to pay installments and shared charges (ground rent, maintenance, etc.), and included strict clauses allowing Jaina to terminate the license and repossess the property if the buyer defaulted even on small payments. Upon termination, Jaina was obligated to refund the buyer’s payments after hefty deductions – e.g. forfeiting earnest money or 30% of the deposit. Over the years (especially post-2005), Jaina and its sister companies have repeatedly gone to court to enforce these clauses, often regaining possession of units when buyers miss payments. The outcome in many cases has been ex-parte decrees in favor of Jaina, as buyers often did not appear (due to change of address, lack of notice, or being unaware of the suit). Below, we chronicle key cases (2010–2025) that illustrate this pattern.
Early Example – Harjeet Trehan Case (2008)
One of the first known cases was a dispute over a unit in T.C. Jaina Tower-II, Janakpuri booked in the late 1980s. The buyer, Harjeet Trehan, had paid installments but allegedly defaulted on some payments. Jaina canceled the allotment in 2006 and offered to refund ?50,271, which the buyer did not collect. Jaina then filed a petition under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, essentially seeking court permission to deposit the refund amount and thus finalize the cancellation. The buyer contested, claiming he had paid all installments on time and even changed his residence in 2000 (which he said he notified to Jaina). He accused Jaina of trying to deprive him of his rights, as he had never received some demand/cancellation notices – suggesting Jaina might have sent critical notices to an outdated address. Despite the defense, the court allowed Jaina’s petition. In August 2008, the Senior Civil Judge (Delhi) ruled that Jaina could deposit the refund in court and that the relationship of debtor-creditor was established. The buyer had not filed any suit for specific performance, and the High Court had already upheld Jaina’s right to cancel and refund in a related revision. Result: The suit was allowed in Jaina’s favor, enabling Jaina to legally terminate the buyer’s license and re-enter the unit (the buyer was free to withdraw the refund). This early case set the tone – Jaina successfully used the courts to enforce a forfeiture clause when a buyer lapsed on payment, effectively reclaiming a property originally sold years earlier.
Using Technicalities & Default Judgments to Retake Units
Jaina’s legal strategy often involves taking advantage of procedural lapses or limitation periods to defeat buyer claims, and securing default judgments when buyers don’t appear. A notable illustration is Rajeshwar Kumar vs. Jaina Properties (P) Ltd. Rajeshwar had applied in 1986 for a tiny shop (60 sq. ft.) in “Rajendra Mahaveera Tower-II” (Paschim Vihar), paying ?54,200. The project was delayed and Rajeshwar eventually sought to either get the shop or a refund with interest. Unfortunately for him, by the time he filed a suit for specific performance (in 2008), it was many years too late. Both the trial court and first appellate court held his suit barred by limitation and also decided other issues against him. In 2018, the Delhi High Court (Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw) dismissed Rajeshwar’s second appeal, finding no substantial question of law – effectively upholding the lower courts’ dismissal of his claims. Result: Jaina’s cancellation stood, and the buyer’s long-pending claim was extinguished on technical grounds. This case underscores how delays or inaction by buyers (even if due to lack of awareness or resources) worked to Jaina’s benefit – the property (booked for ~?50k in the 1980s) remained with the developer, who only needed to refund the nominal original amount (if at all) decades later.
Pattern in Jaina’s License Agreements
The above cases highlight common elements in Jaina’s agreements and conduct: buyers were licensees, not owners, and Jaina retained ultimate control. The license agreements often imposed obligations to pay proportionate ground rent, taxes, maintenance, etc., with strict termination clauses. For example, in the 2025 Aar Pee Apartments vs. Sunil Baruta case, the license for a unit in T.C. Jaina Tower-II, Janakpuri (space No.112) stated that if the licensee failed to pay any government dues, ground rent, or charges, Jaina could “re-enter upon and resume the rights” to the property, and all amounts paid would be refunded after deducting 30% as earnest money. Such terms meant even a minor default gave the builder a legal pretext to reclaim the unit. Indeed, in Baruta’s case Jaina alleged the defendant owed about ?4.2 lakh in ground rent and maintenance (as of 2024) and had even made unauthorized structural alterations to the property. Jaina filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction to enforce the contract. The buyer/occupant never appeared – he was proceeded ex-parte. The Delhi Dwarka Courts (Civil Judge Nishat Bangarh) found Jaina’s evidence unrebutted and in May 2025 decreed the suit in Jaina’s favor. The court granted: (a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the unit to any third party, and (b) a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the space and remove his belongings. (A token damages claim for unauthorized use was not granted due to lack of proof). Result: Jaina regained possession via court order, and the owner who bought the unit years ago (likely for a fraction of its current value) was ousted for not paying fees – a classic example of an ex-parte decree favoring the builder.
2024 Preet Vihar Case – Mass Eviction of Licensees
Jaina’s most striking legal victory came in September 2024 with a sweeping decree against multiple occupants in a building called Vardhman Tower, Preet Vihar. Jaina had acquired the leasehold of the Preet Vihar commercial plot in an auction and built the tower, licensing several units to individuals. By 2023, at least five original licensees (Defendants 1–5) had allegedly stopped paying their share of ground rent and had sub-let or assigned their spaces to third parties. One business (“Puncture Man Junction of Tyres Pvt. Ltd.”) and another individual occupied some units as Defendants 6 and 7, and even demolished a common staircase in violation of building by-laws. Jaina sued all seven parties, again seeking permanent injunction (to bar any further transfers) and mandatory injunction (to evict the occupants), along with damages. In M/s Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gurbachan Singh & Ors. (District Judge Anil Kumar Paswan, KKD Court), Jaina produced evidence of the license agreements and the breaches, whereas the defendants mounted little effective defense (one filed a written statement, but no evidence was led by any defendant to counter Jaina’s claims). The court concluded that “the plaintiff has a better case… and the defendant has no case at all as there is no evidence in favor of the defendant.” Accordingly, on 13 Sept 2024, it passed a decree granting Jaina all major reliefs:
- Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third-party interest or transferring the five licensed spaces.
- Mandatory injunction directing Defendants 1–7 to vacate the premises and remove themselves and their belongings from the five units and even from the illegally occupied staircase area.
A decree was ordered to be drawn up immediately. Result: Jaina successfully obtained a court-sanctioned eviction of multiple occupants, clearing the entire set of defaulting licensees out of the building.
Notably, some of the ousted parties scrambled to challenge this outcome. For instance, Amarjeet Singh @ Pummy (Defendant No.6, one of the sub-tenants) filed a petition in the Delhi High Court in October 2024 to delay the eviction. He had “suffered [the] decree” on 13.09.2024 and by 14.10.2024 the trial court had already issued possession warrants (appointing a bailiff to take possession). Amarjeet’s lawyer argued that the execution should have waited until the appeal period lapsed. In response, the High Court (Justice Manoj Jain) extracted a brief concession from Jaina’s counsel: Jaina agreed not to proceed with coercive eviction for one week to allow Amarjeet to file an appeal. After that week, however, the stay expired – meaning unless higher courts intervene, the High Court left the decree intact. Indeed, an appeal (RFA 947/2023) by two of the original licensees (indicated as “V.B. Singh & Anr.”) against this decree is noted in court records, but as of the end of 2024, no higher court has overturned the September 2024 judgment. Jaina’s eviction decree thus stands as a powerful example of how the builder leveraged the legal system to reclaim valuable real estate from absentee or non-compliant buyers.
Other Cases and Ongoing Fallout
Apart from the headline examples above, Jaina and its associated entities have figured in numerous other court cases from 2010 onwards. A pattern of filing suits for injunctions or debt recovery emerges: for example, M/s Jaina Properties vs. Dinesh Kapoor (Suit No.513/10) where Jaina resisted the buyer’s attempt to invoke an arbitration clause – the court in 2011 dismissed the buyer’s application and kept the case in the judicial forum (denying arbitration). In Sh. Amrik Singh vs. Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Suit No.167/2008), a buyer sued Jaina (likely to enforce his rights), but Jaina managed to delay and introduce evidence late; the court allowed some of Jaina’s procedural requests while admonishing its delays. Many matters ended with buyers’ suits being dismissed or withdrawn – reinforcing that final outcomes have tilted in Jaina’s favor. Even the consumer forums saw battles: e.g. Jaina Properties & Finance Ltd. fought a case with a Mrs. Promila Srivastava around 2014–2015 (the records show an appeal FA/1126/2014) about a property issue, indicating Jaina’s reach into consumer litigation as well.
It’s also telling that multiple corporate entities are used by the same promoters: Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (which sued Sunil Baruta in 2025) and T.M. Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Lord Builders Pvt. Ltd., etc., have all been linked to the Jaina group. This suggests Jaina launches different projects under different company names but with the same modus operandi. Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) records (via Director Identification Numbers) show common directors across these firms, confirming they are sister concerns. The network of companies has helped Jaina pursue separate suits project-wise.
Conclusion: A Clear Legal Pattern
Over the last 15 years, Jaina Properties and its affiliates have repeatedly secured court decrees to take back properties from buyers, often when minor defaults occurred. The tone of the court judgments is notably procedural – courts enforce the letter of contracts and limitation laws, even when it results in one-sided outcomes. Jaina, for its part, has capitalized on buyer absences and technical lapses: many defendants did not show up or dropped out mid-way, resulting in ex-parte orders. Buyers who relocated without updating addresses found themselves at a huge disadvantage – notices went to old addresses and suits proceeded unopposed. Consequently, properties initially sold for “lakhs” of rupees in the 1990s were legally repossessed by the builder in the 2010s–2020s, at best returning the original amounts (often minus 30% or more) to the buyers. Meanwhile, the market value of these units had skyrocketed over decades (e.g. a ?50k shop in 1986 could be worth crores today), meaning the original owners bear a heavy loss.
From an investigative standpoint, Jaina’s litigation history paints a portrait of a builder adept at using the legal system. By writing strict clauses into agreements and rigorously enforcing them in courts, the company “plays the long game” – willing to wait out buyers and then reclaim prime real estate. While Jaina argues this is to ensure all co-owners pay dues (to avoid lease cancellation by DDA, etc.), the practical effect has been windfall gains for the builder at the cost of individual buyers. Our review of cases from 2010 through 2025 confirms numerous decrees in favor of Jaina – from injunctions and eviction orders to dismissals of buyer suits – establishing this builder’s reputation for aggressively pursuing even small defaults through court action. It’s a cautionary tale for property buyers: in projects controlled by such developers, missing a payment or a notice can result in losing not just your case, but your property itself.
Sources:
- Delhi District Court Judgment in M/s Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. v. Sunil Baruta, CS No.610/2024 (Dwarka Courts, judgment dated 14 May 2025) – ex-parte decree of injunction and eviction against licensee.
- Delhi District Court Judgment in M/s Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Gurbachan Singh & Ors., CS No.244/2023 (KKD Courts, judgment dated 13 Sep 2024) – decree evicting multiple licensees for non-payment and violations.
- Delhi High Court order in Amarjeet Singh @ Pummy v. Jaina Properties Pvt. Ltd. CM(M) 3663/2024 (Manoj Jain, J., dated 21 Oct 2024) – noting the 13.09.2024 decree and execution warrants issued on 14.10.2024.
- Delhi High Court judgment in Rajeshwar Kumar v. Jaina Properties (P) Ltd., RSA 44/2017 (R.S. Endlaw, J., decided 12 Oct 2018) – specific performance suit dismissed as time-barred; second appeal rejected.
- Delhi District Court order in M/s Jaina Properties (P) Ltd. v. Harjeet Trehan, S. No.268/2008 (Sr. Civil Judge R.K. Sharma, decided 02 Aug 2008) – builder’s petition allowed to deposit refund after cancellation.
- Selected interim orders: M/s Jaina Properties vs. Dinesh Kapoor (CJ Pranjal Aneja, 24 Dec 2011) – Section 8 Arbitration application dismissed, keeping dispute in court; Sh. Roopinder Singh vs. Jaina Properties (SCJ Ajay Goel, 02 Aug 2011) – trial court’s dismissal of Jaina’s suit reversed on appeal due to defendant’s non-appearance. These reinforce the trend of Jaina ultimately getting its way in litigation.