HIRJI D KAWATHE Vs. RAJDEO BHAGELU PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. Heard.

(2.) This revision application is preferred by the landlord against the dismissal of his suit for eviction by the appellate Court. The appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that the petitioner is not entitled for possession of the suit premises which comprise of one room in which the respondent and his son are residing.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appellate Court has committed a serious error of law apparent on the face of the record by dismissing the petitioners' suit on the basis of a concession only made by the petitioners' advocate. The concession is that during pendency of the suit, three rooms were constructed on the upper floor of the suit premises by the petitioner-landlord. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Swami Krishnanand Govindanand v/s M.D.Oswal Hosiery, 2002 AIR(SC) 1162 in which the Supreme Court has observed that a statement made by an advocate contrary to the written statement of the party he is representing cannot be accepted as an admission of the party and the decree cannot be passed thereon. In that case, Their Lordships, therefore, reversed the order of the Additional Rent Controller which recorded satisfaction on the basis of advocate's statement.