JUDGMENT 1. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, same is allowed and the delay in filing this special appeal is condoned. 2. This special appeal is directed against the judgment & order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.3.2010 by which, writ petition filed by the appellant/writ-petitioner assailing the order dated 10.1.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur and the subsequent order dated 3.2.2010 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur was disposed off. 3. Appellant was tenant in the premises let out by respondent NO.3-landlord, who approached the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and rented premises having become unsafe for human habitation. Both the issues were decided- against him and, therefore, order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur which was affirmed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. Appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge and in the course of arguments, realising that writ petition would be dismissed, the appellant consented to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises by 31.12.2010 in terms of the judgment & decree dated 10.1.2008 and pay arrears of rent in terms of decree within two months from the date of said judgment & decree and continue to pay the rent before the Tribunal on or before 7th of each month. Therefore, on that understanding, the writ petition was disposed off by partially modifying the decree of the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that judgment of the Rent Tribunal as upheld by the Rent Appellate Tribunal ought to have been examined by the learned Single Judge on merits. He having not done so, in this appeal, matter needs consideration on merits because no such consent was ever given by the appellant. Learned counsel in this connection invited the attention of the court towards affidavit of the appellant to say that he did not instruct his counsel nor the counsel concerned informed him about giving any undertaking on his behalf. Learned counsel has argued the matter on merits. 5. Learned counsel in this connection invited the attention of the court towards affidavit of the appellant to say that he did not instruct his counsel nor the counsel concerned informed him about giving any undertaking on his behalf. Learned counsel has argued the matter on merits. 5. We are afraid, an order passed on the basis of consent of the parties is not open to challenge in an appeal, particularly when appellant has availed of the extension of time for vacating the rented premises and by getting the decree modified in terms that the suit property would be required to be vacated by him by 31.12.2010. He has thus practically got extension of stay in the tenanted premises for nine more months. Learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition observed that if appellant/writ-petitioner fails to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the tenanted premises by that date, the respondent will be at liberty to file an application for taking appropriate action against him for non-compliance of the order of this Court. Now, appellant by change of mind, cannot be permitted to take a somersault and contend that he did not give any such consent and his counsel was not authorised to make undertaking on his behalf. The appellant has signed the vakalatnama in favour of Advocate, therefore, he was fully authorised in turn to conduct the writ petition on his behalf before this court and in that process, , conduct of the lawyer cannot be questioned especially when appellant himself has chosen not to question his conduct before the regulatory body like Bar Council. 6. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this special appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.Special Appeal Dismissed. *******