Arjun had a commercial property in Udaipur. He leased out this commercial building for ten years to Bhavesh. Relying on this, Bhavesh entered into a lease agreement, invested substantial money in renovating the premises

Under Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the general rule of estoppel is that when one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing. Estoppel is based on the maxim 'allegans contratia non est audiendus' i.e. a person alleging contrary facts should not be heard. The principles of estoppel cover one kind of facts. It says that a man cannot approbate and reprobate, or that a man cannot blow hot and cold, or that a man shall not say one thing at one time and later on say a different thing. The doctrine of estoppel is based on the principle that it would be most inequitable and unjust that if one person, by a representation made, or by conduct amounting to a representation, has induced another to act as he would not otherwise have done, the person who made the representation should not be allowed to deny or repudiate the effect of his former statement to the loss and injury of the person who acted on it. Based on above provisions, Bhavesh has a strong legal defence against the eviction suit filed by Arjun's father, primarily relying on the Doctrine of Estoppel. Arjun leased the property, and Bhavesh acted on this by entering a lease agreement and investing substantial money. Crucially, if Arjun's father (the apparent true owner) remained silent and allowed Bhavesh to renovate and run the business for two and half years without objection, his silence constitutes an "omission" or "acquiescence." Under Section 121, Arjun's father is to be estopped now from denying Arjun's authority to lease the property. He cannot belatedly claim Arjun had "no authority" after allowing Bhavesh to act on that belief for two and half years. Therefore, Bhavesh should not be asked to evict the premises by Arjun's father.