Damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 compensate proved loss — they do not underwrite every misfortune that follows a breach. On 22 September 2026, the Delhi High Court, in Girish Kumar Jain v. UCO Bank, RFA 634/2026, dismissed a landlord’s appeal seeking Rs 9,94,000 for a near five-year period during which, he said, disconnected electricity left his commercial premises unlettable after the bank tenant vacated. The judgment is a compact tutorial on three recurring failures in damages litigation: causation left to inference, quantum without reasonable certainty, and mitigation ignored.
The dispute
A commercial tenancy that began in March 1994 ended in January 2008, but its litigation afterlife concerned the years that followed. The landlord’s grievance: the tenant bank’s use of the premises culminated in an electricity-theft finding and disconnection in March 2006; after the bank vacated, the premises allegedly could not be re-let for want of power until the landlord arranged a connection from another property in 2013. He sued for Rs 9,94,000 — essentially rent for the barren years at Rs 24,000 per month. The trial court was unpersuaded, and the High Court, in first appeal, agreed.
The three findings
Mitigation unproved. The landlord “failed to establish that mitigation means were unavailable” — the 2013 arrangement of electricity from his other property demonstrated that a solution lay within reach throughout; nothing explained the five-year wait.
Quantum uncertain. The Rs 24,000 monthly rate rested on a lease deed of 2013 — evidence of what the premises fetched later, not of what they would have fetched in the claim period. Damages require proof with reasonable certainty, and a single anchor document from outside the period does not supply it.
Causation unestablished. No evidence showed actual market demand for the premises in the claim years, or that electricity — rather than the market, the premises’ condition or the landlord’s own efforts — caused the vacancy.
Section 73’s quiet requirements
| Element | What the claimant must actually show |
|---|---|
| Breach | A contractual obligation and its violation — here, the conduct said to have caused disconnection. |
| Causation | That the loss flowed naturally from the breach, not from independent causes; alternative explanations must be excluded by evidence. |
| Quantum | Loss proved with reasonable certainty — contemporaneous comparables, records and expert material; damages are compensation, not conjecture. |
| Mitigation | Reasonable steps taken to avoid or reduce the loss; avoidable loss is not recoverable. |
Pleading discipline travelled alongside: the judgment’s framework references Order II Rule 2 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC — reminders that claims omitted when the cause of action is first sued upon, or introduced by belated amendment, meet procedural resistance in addition to evidentiary scrutiny. Landlord-tenant fallouts tend to generate serial claims; the CPC expects them consolidated.
Building a rent-loss claim that survives
The takeaway
Girish Kumar Jain is the ordinary law of damages applied without sentiment: a claimant who waits, estimates and infers recovers nothing, while one who mitigates, documents and proves recovers what the breach truly cost. In commercial tenancy fallouts, the winning file is assembled in the vacancy years — not in the appeal.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the landlord’s case?
The premises were leased to UCO Bank from 1994. The landlord alleged the bank’s use led to electricity theft findings and disconnection of the connection in March 2006; the bank vacated in January 2008, and the landlord claimed he could not re-let the premises for nearly five years for want of electricity, quantifying his loss at Rs 24,000 per month.
Why did the claim fail?
On three grounds: the landlord failed to establish that means of mitigation were unavailable — he ultimately arranged electricity from another property in 2013, and nothing showed he could not have done so earlier; the claimed rate of Rs 24,000 per month lacked reasonable certainty, resting only on a 2013 lease deed; and no evidence demonstrated actual market demand for the premises or that the absence of electricity, rather than market conditions, caused the vacancy.
What does “mitigation” require of a claimant?
Reasonable steps to reduce the loss flowing from the breach. A claimant cannot let losses accumulate passively and present the accumulated figure as damages; the defendant is liable only for loss that reasonable conduct could not have avoided. Proof of attempts — advertisements, broker engagement, alternative arrangements — is part of the claimant’s case, not an afterthought.
What evidence establishes lost rental income?
Comparable lettings of the same or similar premises in the relevant period, expert or broker evidence of market rent, prior rent history, and proof of specific prospective tenants lost. A later lease at a chosen figure, standing alone, does not prove that the same rent was obtainable years earlier.