Commercial Lease Dispute / Tenancy Dispute
The Client: A fast-growing AI startup operating from a 3,000 sq ft office in Sector 44, Gurgaon, with 30 employees and monthly revenue of approximately ₹35 lakh.
What Happened: The startup had signed a 3-year commercial lease for office space in a premium business tower in Gurgaon. The lease included a 6-month lock-in period, rent escalation of 5% annually, and a security deposit of ₹9 lakh (equivalent to 3 months' rent). For the first 18 months, everything went smoothly — rent was paid on time, the office was well-maintained, and the relationship with the landlord was very smooth.
Then, in 19th month, the landlord sent a notice demanding a 30% rent increase, from ₹3 lakh/month to ₹3.9 lakh/month. His excuse was that market rates had gone up and maintenance costs had increased. But the lease agreement clearly said rent could only go up by 5% per year, not 30%. The startup's CEO politely declined the increase, pointing to the lease terms.
When the startup refused to pay increased rent, the landlord started making their life difficult — slowly and deliberately
Week 1: The landlord disconnected the office internet, saying it was "maintenance work." Without internet, the startup's entire work stopped.
Week 2: The landlord's property dealers started showing up at the office every single day, walking through the workspace while employees were on client calls, creating disruption and discomfort.
Week 3: The building's security guards were instructed not to allow the startup's delivery vendors (water, pantry supplies, courier services) into the premises.
Week 4: The landlord changed the locks on a Friday night. On Monday morning, 40 employees arrived at work to find the office locked, their laptops and personal belongings inside, and a handwritten notice on the door saying: "Premises sealed due to non-payment of revised rent."
The CEO called us on Monday morning at 9:15 AM.
What Made This Case Difficult:
- 40 employees had no place to work, their laptops were locked inside, and client deadlines were coming fast
- Important client data, servers, and financial documents were locked inside the office
- The landlord had physical control of the building and had security guards on his side
- The lease was properly registered, but the landlord lied and claimed they had verbally agreed on a higher rent
- The startup couldn't afford to wait weeks for a court order. Every day without the office was costing ₹2-3 lakh in lost revenue and client penalties
- Two major client projects were due within 10 days
How SPJ Advocates Handled It:
Monday, 10:00 AM — Emergency Legal Action
- Filed an urgent suit for mandatory injunction and damages before the District Court, Gurgaon
- Simultaneously filed a police complaint under Section 441 (criminal trespass) and Section 426 (mischief) of the IPC — because locking someone out of premises they are legally allowed to use is a criminal act, not just a civil dispute
- Applied for an urgent ex-parte interim order requesting immediate restoration of possession
Monday, 2:30 PM — Interim Order Obtained
- The District Court passed an ex-parte interim order directing the landlord to hand over the office keys back to our client immediately and stop creating problems for the tenant.
- The court also told the local police to step in and help if the landlord refused to cooperate
Monday, 5:00 PM — Police Involvement
- Visited the local police station with the court order
- The SHO assigned an officer to accompany us to the premises
- The landlord's manager was present and initially refused to open the locks — claiming he "needed to check with the owner"
- The police officer informed him that non-compliance with a court order is contempt and that he would be personally liable
Monday, 7:30 PM — Locks Opened
- The locks were removed. The startup's CEO and key team members entered the office and verified that all equipment, servers, and documents were in place
- Nothing had been damaged with or removed
- A detailed inventory was prepared and photographed as evidence
Tuesday, 8:00 AM — Employees Back at Work
- All 40 employees returned to a fully functional office within 24 hours of the lockout
- Internet was restored after we issued a separate notice to the building management company (who were different from the landlord) threatening action for disruption of essential services
Within 72 Hours — Filed court case for damages
- We filed a counterclaim for ₹18 lakh in damages — covering lost revenue during the lockout week, employee overtime costs, client penalty payments, and mental harassment
Month 2–4 — Resolution
- The landlord's lawyers claimed that there was a verbal agreement for higher rent between both parties, but they had no evidence
- We presented the registered lease agreement (which clearly mentioned 5% annual escalation), 18 months of bank transfer receipts proving rent was always paid on time, and WhatsApp messages where the landlord had acknowledged receiving rent "on time
- The landlord's own property manager admitted during cross-examination that he was told to "make things difficult" for the tenant — this one statement damaged the landlord's entire case
The Settlement:
- The landlord agreed to honour the original lease terms (5% escalation, not the 40% he was demanding) for the remaining lease period
- The landlord requested to our client to withdraw compensation case for lockout, our client accepted his request and withdraw case.
- The security deposit of ₹12 lakh was confirmed as fully refundable at lease end
- A new clause was added to the lease — if the landlord ever locks the office again, he will pay ₹5 lakh per day as penalty
Month 2–4 — Resolution
- The landlord's lawyers claimed that there was a verbal agreement for higher rent between both parties, but they had no evidence
- We presented the registered lease agreement (which clearly mentioned 5% annual escalation), 18 months of bank transfer receipts proving rent was always paid on time, and WhatsApp messages where the landlord had acknowledged receiving rent "on time
- The landlord's own property manager admitted during cross-examination that he was told to "make things difficult" for the tenant — this one statement damaged the landlord's entire case
The Outcome : 40 employees were back at work within 24 hours. Zero client contracts were lost. The landlord is now bound by a lease with real penalties for interference. The CEO, who had never thought about lease protection before this incident — now treats every commercial agreement as a document that needs proper legal review before signing. His words to us after the settlement: "I used to think legal review was an unnecessary expense. That one lockout Monday changed my mind permanently."
