The Supreme Court recently recollected a part of its order which passed in a tenancy-related matter where, after the landlord submitted that his lawyer had made the statement without instructions before the high court. Here, the court had set aside an order of eviction which was passed by the Rent Control Court after recording the statement of the counsel which appeared on behalf of the landlords that they would have no objection if the tenant retains shop, but only when the tenant should pay rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month. The high court then allowed the tenant to keep the shop on condition that he would pay rent at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per month.

The landlord appealed to the apex court challenging that the landlords had not made any compromise before the high court. However, the bench which was headed by Justice R Banumathi was not convinced with this submission and thus observed that:“This compromise is not convincing for the reason that the High Court has clear records that the submission made by the counsel for the appellants-landlords which states that they have no objection for the tenant to keep the shop, it was provided that the tenant pays the enhanced rent of Rs. 10,000.” The court then refused to interfere with the previous order of the high court as the tenant was paying arrears as directed by the high court.

The landlord tried approaching the bench again, by filing an application seeking to recall or recollection of the order, this time it was contended that he has already filed a complaint against his counsel before the Bar Council of India, with relation to the statement before the high court made without his instructions which the court later, modified the matter by relegating the matter to the high court for de novo consideration of the case of the parties so far as the property is concerned.