The High Court dismissed a review petition challenging a consensual order granting a tenant until 2023 to vacate premises. The Court held that a consensual submission regarding facts cannot be recanted to invoke review jurisdiction.
Review petition dismissed; order dated 12.02.2021 remains operational.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 117/2021
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4904/2020
Santosh Devi Sharma Wife Of Shri Ramprasad Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, R/o House No. A-130, Basant Vihar, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu.
----Review Respondent/Petitioner
Versus
Salim Ahmed Son Of Jaheer Ahmed, R/o House No. F-5, Indranagar, Jhunjhunu.
----Review Petitioner/Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kedar Prasad Sharma for Mr. Amrit Prasad Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order
14/12/2021
In this review petition, a prayer has been made to recall the order dated 12.02.2021 and to direct the review nonpetitioner/tenant (for brevity, ‘the tenant’) Smt. Santosh Devi Sharma to vacate the premises prior to 03.01.2022.
The facts in brief are that a writ petition no.4904/2020 was filed by the tenant against the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu whereby the appeal preferred by the tenant against the order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu allowing the application filed by the review petitioner/landlord under Sections 6, 9 and 14 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction and revision of rent, was dismissed. While deciding the writ petition, this Court, vide order dated 12.02.2021, granted the tenant time upto 28.02.2023 to vacate the premises subject to payment of mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per month.
(2 of 2)
[WRW-117/2021]
Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that period of two years is too long as the review petitioner is 68 years old handicapped person. He submitted that he wants to utilize the premises for his basic needs and hence, the period of two years be curtailed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The order dated 12.02.2021 was passed with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. Learned counsel for the review petitioner agreed for two years’ time to vacate the premises on the condition that the tenant would pay enhanced mesne profit @ of Rs.2,000/- per month. It is trite that a party is bound by the submission made/concession extended by his counsel touching the factual aspect of the matter unless, it is against any law/statutory provision and he cannot be permitted to resile from it on the premise that it was so done without his prior consent. None of the submission made by the learned counsel satisfies the pre-requisite condition necessary to invoke review jurisdiction. In view thereof, the Court is not inclined to review the order dated 12.02.2021.
The review application is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/119
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court may exercise its review jurisdiction to recall an impugned order when the prayer is based on acknowledgements of facts made by counsel during the earlier proceedings.
Santosh Devi Sharma
Salim Ahmed
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
