SARITA SHARMA Vs. SUNDER DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review petition. This petition seeks a review of the order dated 14.02.2002 wherein counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vijay Kumar had sought permission of this court to withdraw this petition; permission having been granted petition had been dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner was aggrieved by this order; he had filed an SLP before the Apex Court; the Apex Court on 02.03.2012 had granted permission to the petitioner to move an appropriate application seeking review of this order before this court; petitioner is accordingly before this court today.

(2.) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although admittedly Mr. Vijay Kumar was the advocate of the petitioner but he had made a wrong statement on the date when the impugned order was passed i.e. 14.02.2012. Relevant would it be to state that it is not the contention of the petitioner (now represented through a new counsel) that Mr. Vijay Kumar was not authorized to appear on behalf of the petitioner or Mr. Vijay Kumar had made a statement which was not as per the instructions of the petitioner; contention is that the earlier advocate, Vijay Kumar was under the impression that since the ground urged by him before this court was a ground which did not find mention in his application for leave to defend, it would be more appropriate for him to withdraw this petition and to agitate the impugned order by way of a writ petition. This is borne out from the submission made by Mr. Vijay Kumar who had been also requested to appear in court today. Petitioner is also present in person. In fact it is not the case of any person before this court (i.e. the petitioner, his counsel, Mr. Vijay Kumar or the new counsel, Mr. Varun Goswami) that Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate did not have the requisite power of attorney or the authority to make a statement on behalf of the petitioner. This petition accordingly deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

(3.) Be that as it may, the merits of the controversy raised by the petitioner have also been considered. His contention is that his application seeking leave to defend could not have been dismissed as triable issues had been raised by him; attention has been drawn to the averments made in the application seeking leave to defend wherein it has been brought to the notice of the court that the landlord was also the holder of another property i.e. property bearing No. 7753, Nawab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi measuring 7.5' x 20'; there was yet another property which was available with the landlord which is property bearing No. E-16/243, Tank Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi measuring 15' x 20'; these alternate accommodations have not been considered by the ARC. In this background, eviction petition having been decreed suffers from an infirmity