JAMIL ABDAR KADAR Vs. SHANKARLAL GULABCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is more than meets the eye in the seemingly simple legal issue raised in this ejectment suit, if we probe the deeper public and professional implications of the limitations on a pleader's implied power to enter into a compromise of a case bona fide on behalf of his client, but in his interest, although without his consent.

(2.) The facts, to use trite phraseology, fall within a narrow compass. The landlords, Respondents 1 to 3, brought an action for eviction of the tenant-appellant (Regular Suit 141 of 1964) under the rent control law extant in Maharashtra. Litigation is often so harassingly long that even where recovery of possession is sought for Immediate bona fide need of the owner, the judicial process takes its slow motion course that settlement of the dispute is not infrequently preferred by both sides to protracted adjudicatory justice. In the present case, although parties had engaged lawyers and gone to trial, they took several adjournments from Court to compose their differences. The last such was granted in these terms:

(3.) Now to the only contention canvassed before us. Although vintage rulings and relevant books have been cited and voyages to Anglo-American legal systems made, we have to decide the issue in the light of Indian statute law and decisions against the backdrop of Indian condition. Foreign aid is helpful but in law, as in life, Indian genius must speak. In this perspective, first we have to look at the pertinent provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the Advocates Act and the Bombay Pleaders Act.