Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The appeal impugns the order dated 3rd December, 2013 of the learned Single Judge of this Court (exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction in CS(OS) No.1698/2001 filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff, on the applications, being I.A. No.22751/2012 of the respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order XV-A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 and I.A. No.13496/2011 also of the respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order XXXVIII Rules 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the CPC) directing the appellant/defendant to, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties, deposit in this Court an amount of Rs.1 lakh per month with effect from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 14th July, 2011 till the date of the order and to continue to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh per month in this Court during the pendency of the suit.

2. This appeal is pending before this Court since 3rd January, 2014. The counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff being on caveat appeared. Attempts for amicable settlement of the dispute were made but failed. Vide interim orders in this appeal, the date of compliance with the impugned order was extended from time to time. We have heard the counsel for the appellant/defendant and the counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

3. The respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, (i) for possession of part of property No.D-2/12, Model Town-III, Delhi-09 comprising of part of the ground floor and part of the first floor; (ii) for recovery of Rs.94 lakhs on account of rent of the aforesaid portion of the property; (iii) for recovery of another sum of Rs.20 lakhs; (iv) for recovery of damages for use and occupation/mesne profits @ Rs.4 lakhs per month from the date of institution of the suit till recovery of possession; (v) for declaration that the affidavit-cum-no objection allegedly signed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in favour of the appellant/defendant is a forged document; and, (vi) for declaration that the rent receipt dated 1st December, 2007 purportedly issued by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in favour of the appellant/defendant is a forged document and for cancellation thereof, pleading:

(a) that the respondent No.1/plaintiff inducted the appellant/defendant as a tenant in one shop in the aforesaid property in the year 2002 at a monthly rent of Rs.400/- for a period of two years;

(b) that subsequently vide Commission Agency Agreement dated 31st August, 2002 the remaining portion also was given to the appellant/defendant and the appellant/defendant gave a minimum guarantee of payment of Rs.7 lakhs per annum;

(c) that another Commission Agency Agreement was entered into between the respondent No.1/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant on 31st August, 2006 for a period of two years and whereunder the appellant/defendant guaranteed to pay a minimum sum of Rs.18 lakhs per annum to the respondent No.1/plaintiff;

(d) that the period of two years of the Commission Agency Agreement dated 31st August, 2006 expired but the appellant/defendant was permitted to continue as a tenant in the aforesaid portion at a monthly rent of Rs.3 lakhs per month;

(e) that the respondent No.1/plaintiff vide notice dated 16th March, 2011 determined the tenancy of the appellant/defendant;

(f) that the appellant/defendant failed to vacate the premises inspite of determination of his tenancy;

(g) that another notice dated 8th April, 2011 was also issued by the respondent No.1/plaintiff to the defendants for recovery of amounts of Rs.20 lakhs and Rs.94 lakhs.

4. The appellant/defendant contested the suit, by filing a written statement, on the following grounds:

(I) denying the Commission Agency Agreements dated 31st August, 2002 and 31st August, 2006 and contending that the same were got executed from the appellant /defendant fraudulently, by making the appellant /defendant sign blank papers;

(II) that the appellant /defendant had paid a pagadi of Rs.20 lakhs in the year 2002