KALEY KHAN vs JAMIA MASJID AKSE JAMIL
This matter originated from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit arrears and future rent, but upon the tenant's failure to comply, the tenant's defence was struck off, and an eviction order was passed. Subsequent appeals and a constitutional petition filed by the tenant were dismissed by the lower courts and the High Court, respectively. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the tenant's failure to deposit rent could be excused on the grounds that his counsel had temporarily left the courtroom with permission and was unaware of the order passed during his absence. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, holding that the counsel's absence did not absolve the tenant of his liability. The Court affirmed the principle that it is the professional duty of counsel to ascertain the status of proceedings and orders passed in their cases, and failure to do so constitutes negligence attributable to the client. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does the temporary absence of a counsel from the courtroom excuse a client's failure to comply with a court order for rent deposit?
- Is a client bound by the negligence of their counsel in failing to ascertain the status of court proceedings?
- Can a tenant avoid the consequences of an eviction order for non-payment of rent by claiming ignorance of the underlying deposit order?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHANJ.-Respondent/landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant/petitioner from the property in dispute. In that case the petitioner was required to deposit the arrears of rent and also the future rent but as this order was not complied with, the defence of the petitioner was struck off on 17-9-1978 and his eviction was ordered. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 2-1- 1980. He filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 199/80, which however, abated on 25-6-1980 due to the change of the law on the subject.
2. At that stage the petitioner filed a constitutional petition being P. W. 7270/80 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the High Court on 25-10-1980. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for leave to appeal against that order to this Court.
3. The only point which was argued before the High Court by the petitioner was that the default in the deposit/payment of rent was not lawful inasmuch as his counsel before the Rent Controller had left the Court with his permission for sometime and for that reason the relevant order which was passed on the aforesaid date was not in the know, ledge of the petitioner. All the Courts below did not accept the plea as sufficient to take the petitioner out of his relevant liability and held that if the counsel concerned had left the Court for sometime it was duty to later find out as to what order had been passed in the case on that date. But as he never cared to so it showed a clear negli-- gence both on his part and as well as his client. Learned counsel ha argued that this view of the Courts below is not correct. We fin' nothing wrong either in principle or on the factual aspect of the case above mentioned.
4. The result is that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. The petition is dismissed.