CHOTE MIYAN Vs. IQBAL BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for selling aside the order dated 12-11-1998 in CRP No.3230 of 1997. The tenant is the petitioner herein and the parties will be referred to as tenant and landlady.

(2.) The facts emerging from the affidavit of the tenant which is filed in support of this petition are that the landlady filed RCC No.227 of 1994 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, seeking his eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of monthly rents. After elaborate enquiry, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that there was no wilful default in payment of monthly rents. Her appeal to the appellate authority RA No.562 of 1995 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad also met with the same fate. The landlady preferred CRP No.3230 of 1997 assailing the same.

(3.) The tenant was represented by one Sri Fariduddin, Advocate in this Court. On 12-11-1998, the CRP came up for hearing before a learned single Judge. According to the tenant, Sri Fariduddin, Advocate was not authorised by him to represent that he would vacate the premises without demanding any amenities, but he came to know that Sri Fariduddin, Advocate represented that he would vacate the premises without demanding amenities and thereupon an eviction order has been passed on 12-11-1998. It is asserted in the affidavit of the tenant that he received a postal cover from this Court in the first week of March, 1999 and thereupon he approached his Advocate to know the nature and contents of the postal cover and he was informed that it was a show-cause notice in CC No.273 of 1999 and that the revision petition filed by the landlady was allowed long back with a direction to file an undertaking before the Court that he would vacate the premises within six months and that the landlady filed a Contempt Application as he failed to comply with that direction. The tenant further asserted that he was shocked to hear the same as he was not aware of the order allowing the CRP and he has not informed by his Advocate (reference to Sri Fariduddin) about the same. Thus he appears to have taken back his file and entrusted the same to one Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, who verified the records and informed him about the eviction order passed against him. He alleged that Sri Fariduddin, Advocate has played fraud upon him and he was gained over by the other side and that the same is in violation of mandatory provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3 CPC. He sought for setting aside the order on the ground that he would suffer irreparable loss and damage if the same is not set aside and he would become shelter less.