The principle of estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act prevents a tenant from questioning the landlord's title during the tenancy, even after surrendering possession.

1. The present CM(M) petition no. 1764/2023 has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Comm)-03, Karkardooma Court, Shahdara District, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as learned “Trial Court”) in CS (COMM) no. 699/2022, titled as “Jagmohan Sapra vs. Swapnil Aeron” whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) read with Section 151 of CPC for summoning of record qua 13 title documents of the property bearing no. E-5/8, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi. Page 2 of 10

2. Petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in CS (Comm.) no. 699/2022 which is pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court.

3. For the purpose of adjudication of the present petition, the relevant facts are that in 2021, the petitioner was searching for a shop in Krishna Nagar with the intention of launching a pharmacy business. During the search, the petitioner came across two vacant shops situated directly across Goyal Hospital, Krishna Nagar, both featuring a “To-Let” sign wherein the contact information of the respondent was also mentioned.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner had a meeting with the respondent, during which the respondent agreed to lease both the shops to the petitioner and subsequently, accompanied the petitioner for physical inspection of one of the vacant shops. It is worth noting that the shops in question which the respondent represented to be his and invited the petitioner to inspect were situated adjacent to another vacant shop on the right-hand side.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent misrepresented to the petitioner that the address of the shop shown is shop no. 3 & 4, E-5/8, Krishna Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) and further misrepresented to the petitioner that there is no charge, lien, encumbrance or any dispute with regards to the said shop. Relying on the aforesaid representation, the petitioner agreed to take on rent the suit property and accordingly paid a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- via cheque no. 014115 dated Page 3 of 10 08.11.2021 to the respondent as advance security deposit, which was refundable at the time of vacating the said property.

6. Subsequently, both the parties entered into a lease agreement dated 29.11.2021 which was duly registered before the Sub Registrar, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. The lease deed is for a period of 5 years, staring from 01.12.2021 and ending on 30.11.2026. Thereafter, on 01.12.2021, the respondent handed over the physical possession of the suit property which was represented to be shop no. 3 & 4, E-5/8, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. After taking possession of the suit property, the petitioner applied for a drug license and commenced renovation work in the rented premises. The expenses incurred for these tasks amounted to Rs. 2,00,000/-. On 18.01.2022, the drug license was issued to the petitioner which involved incurring additional expenses amounting to Rs. 3,45,000/-.

7. Despite obtaining the drug license beforehand, the petitioner could only commence operations at the suit property in March, 2022. However, the petitioner consistently paid the monthly rent of Rs. 80,000/- to the respondent. Upon starting operations on 21.03.2022, the petitioner came across a legal notice sent by Mr. Deepak Rastogi. In the legal notice, Mr. Rastogi had contended that the suit property belongs to him and directed the petitioner to vacate the said property. After examining the notice and the documents annexed thereto, it became apparent that the respondent had handed over possession of shop no. 1 & 2 instead of shop no. 3 & 4, as specified in the registered lease deed.

Page 4 of 10

8. Following this, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 10.05.2022, whereby the petitioner terminated the lease and cal