The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the appellants' admissions regarding the landlord-tenant relationship, liability to pay rent, and termination of tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

C.M. APPL. No. 11264/2023

1. The Appellants (Original Defendants) are aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2021 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the ADJ-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi in C.S. No. 670/2020 titled as Savita Devi and Another vs. Subhash Chand Jain and Another.

2. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the Applications filed by the Respondents (Original Plaintiffs) under (i) Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC and (ii) Order XII Rule 6 CPC. While allowing the said Applications, the learned Trial Court, vide the Impugned Judgment, was pleased to hold that the Respondents are entitled to decree of possession and accordingly directed the Appellants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the shop on the ground floor portion as well as the basement below the said shop of the property bearing No. X-3998-A, Gali No. 14, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 (“Suit Property”) to the Respondents. Learned Trial Court further directed the Appellants to pay the admitted rent @ Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- for the ground floor and Rs. 15,000/- for the basement) per month to the Respondents from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of vacation of the Suit Property. The issue of mesne profit is still pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court.

3. This Court disposed of the present Appeal earlier vide Judgment dated 21.12.2022 based on the consent of the parties. As per the said consent Judgment dated 21.12.2022, the Appellants agreed to vacate the Suit Property by 20.03.2023. However, the Appellants now prefers an application for recalling of the said Judgment dated 21.12.2022 (C.M. No. 11264/2023) on the ground that the counsel representing the Appellants at that time acted without his instructions and gave consent on their behalf before this Court. The Appellants have also filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi against the said Advocate, Mr. Ankit Tandon who was representing the Appellants at that time.

4. After examining facts of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the conduct of the Appellants before examining the merits of C.M. No. 11264/2023 and the present appeal.

CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANTS

5. This Appeal was listed before this Court on 22.07.2022 for hearing on admission. Mr. Ankit Tandon, Advocate appeared and argued the Appeal on behalf of the Appellants. Based on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellants, this Court was not inclined to issue notice. At that stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants prayed for some time to obtain necessary instructions from the Appellants as to whether they are interested in seeking time to vacate the Suit Property instead of pursuing the present appeal.

6. On the next date of hearing, i.e. on 18.08.2022, learned counsel, on instructions received from the Appellants, stated that “the Appellant is not interested in pressing the present Appeal on merits, but is seeking one year time to vacate the suit property, which is a commercial property where he is running cloth shop.” In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellants, this Court issued notice to the Respondents.

7. The matter was taken up for hearing on 21.12.2022. On the said date, learned counsel for the Appellants appeared along with Appellant No. 1 (through video Conferencing). Accordingly, this Court disposed of the present Appeal with the consent of the parties. The Judgment dated 21.12.2022, inter-alia reads, as follows:

“1. Present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.12.2021, whereby two applications, one under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC and the other under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, filed by the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court, have been allowed and the Trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, on instructions from