Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2155 (RAJ)

Ghansi Lal v. Mahaveer

2014-12-17

ALOK SHARMA

body2014
ORDER : REPORTABLE: This petition has been filed against the order dated 6.8.2014 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran in civil misc. application No. 39/2014 whereby an application filed by the petitioner / defendant /tenant (hereinafter 'the tenant') for recall of a consent order dated 25.10.2013 in an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran was dismissed. The facts relevant to this petition are that an eviction suit was laid by the respondent / plaintiff / landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') on the ground of reasonable necessity under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001'). The Rent Tribunal, Baran vide order dated 9.12.2011 passed a Judgment of eviction against the tenant and issued a certificate of possession in favour of the landlord. An appeal against the order of Rent Tribunal, Baran was filed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran. On 25.10.2013 the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran recorded that after having argued on appeal both the parties were agreeable to a consent order where-under the tenant would be allowed to continue in the tenanted premises upto 31.12.2014 and after that the tenanted shop was to be returned to the landlord. The order dated 25.10.2013 was passed subject to the condition that monthly rent would paid to the landlord and no damage would be caused by the tenant to the tenanted property. An application thereafter came to be moved by the tenant on 16.11.2013 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran seeking recall of the order dated 25.10.2013 obviously stating that the disposal of the appeal on the tenant's consent got recorded by his counsel on 31.12.2014 was without authority. It was submitted that the tenant had at no point of time instructed his counsel to compromise the matter before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran and the counsel was under instructions and duty to have it adjudicated on merits. On consideration of the application for recall of the order dated 25.10.2013 the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran dismissed the said application vide order dated 6.8.2014. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the tenant has submitted that the bonafides of the tenant in moving the application for recall are evident from the fact that it was moved within one month thereof i.e on 16.11.2013. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the tenant has submitted that the bonafides of the tenant in moving the application for recall are evident from the fact that it was moved within one month thereof i.e on 16.11.2013. It has been submitted that there was no written authority with the Advocate to disavow the rights of the tenant to have his appeal decided on merits against the judgment of eviction and certificate of possession dated 9.12.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal Baran. Counsel submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran has over-looked the aforesaid fact and wrongly dismissed the application for recall of the order dated 25.10.2013. Mr. Alok Chaturvedi has supported the impugned order dated 6.8.2014. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the case of Bakshi Dev Raj and Anr. vs. Sudheer Kumar, AIR 2011 SC 3137 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power of the counsel to make a statement before the Court extends to withdrawal of appeal or modification of decree appealed therefrom. On query being put to Mr. Jindalcounsel for the tenant, he has stated that the complaint to the Bar Council of Rajasthan against the Advocate who allegedly unauthorizedly had the appeal disposed of on consent was filed only on 1.9.2014. It is thus apparent that the purported complaint against the Advocate by the tenant was belatedly filed i.e only subsequent to the dismissal of the application for recall of the order dated 25.10.2013 on 6.8.2014. To my mind the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran clearly reveals that the appeal was argued on merits and faced with an imminent dismissal, counsel for the tenant acting quite obviously on instructions, albeit oral, of the tenant salvaged an additional 15 months stay in the tenanted premises for the tenant during which the tenant could find alternate accommodation. I am of the considered view that an agent for his client, an Advocate has the authority to take decisions in the mater on the spot for his client protection salvaging whatever can be had in the matter. In the appeal by the tenant before the Appellate Rent Tribunal its dismissal would have entailed the tenant near immediate dispossession. The Advocate's decision in the circumstances to salvage 15 months additional tenancy cannot said to be unjust, unfair or unauthorized. In the appeal by the tenant before the Appellate Rent Tribunal its dismissal would have entailed the tenant near immediate dispossession. The Advocate's decision in the circumstances to salvage 15 months additional tenancy cannot said to be unjust, unfair or unauthorized. Even without written instructions, the counsel for a client acting bonafide has the implied authority to take on the spot best decisions. A contra view would render advocate client relationships unworkable and the Courts dysfunctional. No allegations of malafide or collusion were made against the advocate for over a period of the year following the consent order passed the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran The over-all facts of the case do not satisfy this Court that the conduct of the tenant's Advocate before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran in disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise (which was also beneficial to the tenant giving him additional 15 months stay in the tenanted premises) was fraudulent and it cannot be held to be unauthorized. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has rightly dismissed the recall application by the impugned order dated 6.8.2014. I find no force in the writ petition. Accordingly dismissed.