JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

This case is a classic example of a just cause getting defeated by setting up dubious pleas and depriving a party of what is legally due to him. It is one of those innumerable cases where course of justice has been attempted to be deflected by factual and legal red herrings.

2. Appellant is the defendant in a suit filed by respondent-plaintiff No. 1 for recovery of consolidated and expected commission/rendition of accounts and possession of Premises No.15A/16-I, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

3. As per suit averments respondent-plaintiff No.1 was a tenant in respect of the aforesaid premises on a monthly rent w.e.f. 15-3-1962. The shop was registered under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, (in short the Establishment Act ) in the name of M/s Esquire, of which respondent-plaintiff No. 1 was the proprietor. Later on, the name of the concern was changed to M/s. Purshotams. For all intents and purposes there was no change of proprietorship. Plaintiff No. 2, Tahil Ram is the father of respondent-plaintiff No. 1 and his power of attorney holder. Tahil Ram entered into an agency-cum-deed of licence with the appellant-defendant o