JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.: - This recall application has been filed on 03.10.2013 by tenant petitioner through Ms. Kirti Srivastava, learned counsel for recall of order dated 20.05.2013. Sri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel, who was appearing for the petitioner in the writ petition when it was heard and decided on 20.05.2013 had stated that nine months' time might be granted to the petitioner to vacate as mentioned in the said order. It was observed in the said order that learned counsel for landlord had no objection to that. Accordingly, writ petition was disposed of on the undertaking of Sri Rajeev Singh, petitioner's counsel that the tenant would vacate the shop in dispute positively within nine months. Merit of the case was also adverted to in the said order. 2. It has been stated in this application filed through another counsel by the tenant petitioner that Sri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel was not authorised to give undertaking without taking consent by petitioner applicant and it has further been stated that Dr. Dheeraj Kapoor, petitioner No.1/1 has made complaint against, Rajeev Singh, learned counsel before Bar Council on the ground that he had no authority to compromise the case without the consent of the client. It is nowhere stated in the application that petitioner was not aware of the order. The only thing which has been stated is that the aforesaid facts were not within the knowledge of the petitioner applicant at the time of hearing of the matter. Power/ vakalatnama of Sri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel is on record. The application is supported by affidavit of Dr. Dheeraj Kapoor, petitioner No.1/1. 3. Earlier writ petition had been dismissed in default on 12.04.2013 as Sri Awadesh Kumar, the previous counsel of the petitioner had stated that file had been taken away from him. Thereafter, Sri Rajeev Singh filed his power and argued the matter. 4. The petitioner very conveniently remained in possession for about five months on the basis of the undertaking and thereafter filed the application stating that the learned counsel had no authority to file undertaking. If the court dismisses the petition of the tenant and agrees for grant of time on undertaking, then the counsel of the tenant is fully authorised to give undertaking. If the court dismisses the petition of the tenant and agrees for grant of time on undertaking, then the counsel of the tenant is fully authorised to give undertaking. In any case, what Sri Raveev Singh, the previous counsel did was only and only for the benefit of the tenant otherwise no time would have been granted to the tenant. Accordingly, this application is utterly baseless and the tenants particularly Dr. Dheeraj Kapoor, who has filed affidavit in support of this application is acting dishonestly and mischievously. 5. The application is therefore dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-. I was inclined to impose Rs.1 lac as cost, however on great persuasion of Ms. Kirti Srivastava, learned counsel I have reduced the cost to Rs.50,000/-. Prayer for further reduction is rejected. The D.M. Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to recover the amount from the petitioner No.1 like arrears of land revenue and handover the same to Sri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel. 6. In my opinion, there is nothing, which may be inquired by the Bar Council on the complaint of the petitioner filed against Sri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel. It is interesting to note that complaint before Bar Council was filed on 08.07.2013 but this recall application was filed after three months, i.e. in October, 2013 so that tenants could enjoy the time to vacate granted on the undertaking of Sri Rajeev Singh, their learned counsel. 7. It is further directed that in case property in dispute is not vacated by 20.02.2014, then tenants shall be liable to eviction in execution and since 20.02.2014 till actual eviction they shall also be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month, which shall be recovered under Rule 24 of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and for the said purpose certified copy of this order shall be treated to be certificate in Form-G as provided under Rule 24(2). 8. Office is directed to provide a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel. 9. In the end, Ms. Kirti Srivastava, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of this application as not pressed. The prayer is rejected.