The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of estoppel against tenants or lessees in possession, as embodied in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prevents a tenant from denying the title of the landlord who let him into possession.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

CM No. 13995/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

CM No. 13993/2021

2. This is an application filed by the Appellant/Defendant No.1 seeking condonation of delay of 423 days in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Order XLI Rule 3(A) CPC.

3. The twofold grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay are that it took some time for the Appellant to change the counsel and engage a new one as also that Ms. Tarvinderjit Kaur, the sole proprietor of Appellant was diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment for the same. Her husband and son both underwent surgeries for the fracture of leg and jaw, respectively and due these multiple issues, which she was required to handle singly, counsel could not be engaged on time. Situation worsened on account of Pandemic Covid-19 and thus the delay is bonafide and for reasons beyond the control of the Appellant.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the Appellant and examined the application.

5. Appellant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal and the averments are supported by medical documents. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 423 days is condoned.

6. Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

RSA 39/2021 & CM APPL. 13992/2021(for stay)

7. Present regular second appeal has been filed for setting aside the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal of the Appellant herein preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2018 passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff for possession, permanent injunction and damages/mesne profits, has been dismissed. Appellant was Defendant No.1 in the suit, Respondent No.1 herein was the Plaintiff and Respondent No. 2 was Defendant No.2 and are being referred to hereinafter by their litigating status in this Court.

8. Respondent No.1 filed a suit against Appellant pleading therein that Appellant had breached the terms and conditions of the Commission Agency Agreement (hereinafter referred to as `the Agreement') dated 14.05.1997. The suit property bearing No. 4008, Shivaji Road, Azad Market, Delhi-110006 was allotted to father of Respondent No.1, Late Mr. Jagdish Prasad, by DDA and was subsequently mutated in the name of the Respondent No.1. Appellant was authorized to carry out bookings and delivery of goods, as a commission agent under the Agreement, from the premises of the suit property. The Agreement was renewed from time to time albeit orally and Appellant had been sending Rs.6,000/- per month towards commission to the Respondent No.1 at his shop. However, from June, 2013, Appellant stopped paying the commission and it was learnt by the Respondent No.1 that Appellant had handed over possession of the suit property to Respondent No.2 without consent or even knowledge of Respondent No.1.

9. As per the case set out in the plaint, Appellant committed breach of the terms of the Agreement and thus Respondent No. 1 vide notice dated 20.07.2013 terminated the Agreement, calling upon the Appellant and Respondent No.2 to handover possession of the suit property, let out on license/commission basis. Respondent No.1 also demanded damages @ Rs.25,000/- per month and subsequently filed the present suit.

10. On being served with the summons, written statement was filed by the Appellant pleading that the legal heirs of late Sh. Jagdish Prasad misled the Appellant into believing that they had rights over the suit property. Notice issued by the DDA revealed that Respondent No.1 was in unauthorized occupation of public land and in any event being a stranger to the Agreement had no locus to file the suit. DDA had directed Appellant to pay damages and he is dealing with the DDA in his own right. It was denied that Respondent No.1 had terminated the Agreement, vide notice dated 20.07.2013 or cal