The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on a tenant who tried to wriggle out of an undertaking to deposit rent arrears. The man claimed that his lawyer had made the statement without his consent. But the bench was unconvinced and even reprimanded him for attempting to shift the blame onto his advocate.
Background
The case arose out of eviction proceedings where the tenant, Santosh Gosain, had been directed to deposit admitted rent arrears under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court had earlier struck off his defence for failing to comply. In his appeal before the Supreme Court, Gosain argued that the undertaking recorded was not his but a “mistake” on the part of his lawyer.
Read also: Supreme Court Restores Daughter’s Right to Ancestral Property, Quashes High Court Review in
The High Court, however, had already noted that the tenant was personally present during the hearing and had in fact instructed his lawyer to submit the statement. This contradiction formed the core of the dispute before the apex court.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria did not take kindly to the tenant’s approach. They stressed that once something is recorded in a court’s order, it carries weight and cannot be casually denied.
“The bench observed, ‘We are not impressed by the said argument on account of recalcitrant attitude exhibited by the petitioner… Such conduct should not only be deprecated but also should be curbed with iron hands as otherwise the stream of justice is likely to be polluted.’”
In plain terms, the judges indicated that blaming the lawyer after participating in the process was nothing but an attempt to mislead.
Decision
The Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision and dismissed the petition. It went a step further and imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the tenant, directing that the amount be paid into the Punjab Chief Minister’s Flood Relief Fund.
The order ended firmly: “In that view of the matter we are inclined to dismiss this petition with cost of Rs.10,000 payable to the Chief Minister's Flood Relief Fund (Government of Punjab).”
Case Title: Santosh Gosain vs. M/s Beli Ram Sareen & Anr.
