Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 1050
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Munish Sharda
Versus
Bhai Manbir Singh
Civil Revision No. 1664 of 2011,
Decided On : APRIL 20, 2011
An advocate engaged by a party can authorize another advocate to appear on his behalf if he is prevented by a reasonable cause from appearing. An advocate instructed by an advocate engaged by the party can only plead and cannot act. Sub-tenants cannot be ordered to be evicted for the fault of the tenant in not tendering the arrears of rent.
Headnote:
Advocate - Authorization to Appear - Section 119 of CPC, Order III Rule 4(5) of CPC, Form No.19 provided in Appendix H of CPC, Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961, Rules 2 & 7, Chapter 6, Part B of Rules & Orders - An advocate engaged by a party is competent to authorize another advocate to appear on his behalf if he is prevented by a reasonable cause from appearing and conducting the proceedings at any hearing. An advocate, who is instructed by an advocate engaged by the party, can only plead and cannot act.
Fact of the Case:
The landlords filed a petition seeking eviction of the tenant and sub-tenants from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenant engaged an advocate who later passed away, and another advocate appeared on their behalf. The sub-tenants were ordered to be evicted due to non-tendering of rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appearance of the second advocate was valid as the first advocate had authorized him. The court also ruled that the second advocate could only plead and not act on behalf of the party. The sub-tenants could not be ordered to be evicted for the fault of the tenant in not tendering the arrears of rent.
Issues: 1. Validity of the appearance of the second advocate on behalf of the party. 2. Authority of the second advocate to act on behalf of the party. 3. Liability of the sub-tenants to be evicted for non-tendering of rent.
Ratio Decidendi: An advocate engaged by a party can authorize another advocate to appear on his behalf if he is prevented by a reasonable cause from appearing. An advocate instructed by an advocate engaged by the party can only plead and cannot act. Sub-tenants cannot be ordered to be evicted for the fault of the tenant in not tendering the arrears of rent.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order regarding the sub-tenants is set aside. The sub-tenants cannot be ordered to be evicted for the fault of the tenant in not tendering the arrears of rent.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. The questions involved in this revision petition are as under:-
i) Whether an advocate engaged by a party can authorize another advocate to appear for him if he is prevented by a reasonable cause from appearing and conducting the proceedings at any hearing?
ii) Whether an advocate, who appears on behalf of another advocate engaged by a party, can only plead and cannot act on behalf of the said party without a document in writing in his favour?
iii) Whether a sub-tenant cannot be ordered to be evicted only on the ground of non-payment of rent?
2. A few facts are required to be noticed in order to find out answer to the aforesaid questions. Bhai Manbir Singh and Bhai Mandeep Singh [hereinafter referred to as "landlords"] filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] seeking eviction of M/s Good Luck Marketing Services Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as "tenant"], Munish Sharda and Aryans International [hereinafter referred to as "sub-tenants"] from the First Floor of SCO Nos.32-35, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as "demised premises"] on the ground of non-payment of rent. On 03.02.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order;-
"Present: Sh . Rajbir Singh Guraon , Advocate,
Counsel for the petitioners.
Petition received by entrustment. It is checked and registered. Notice of the same be issued for 28.03.2009 to the respondents on filing of PF copy etc.
Sd /- Sudhir Parmar
CJ/RC/03.02.2009."
On 28.03.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:-
"Present: Sh . Rajbir Singh Guraon , Advocate, C1 . for the petitioners.
Sh . S.P. Chhatwal , CI. for the respondent No.1.
Sh . N.S. Bawa , CI. for respondents No.2 & 3.
Respondent served through summons.
Vakalatnamas filed on behalf of respondents No.l to 3 by counsel named above.
On request, to come up on 23.04.2009 for filing reply on behalf of all the respondents.
Sd /-Sudhir Parmar
CJ/RC/28.03.2009."
On 23.04.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:-
"Present: Counsel for the parties. WS on behalf of def. No.l filed. Copy given. WS on behalf of def. No.2 and 3 not filed. At request, adjourned to 12.06.2009 for filing WS on behalf of def. No.2 and 3. Sd/-
On 12.06.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:-
"Present: As before. File put up before me under the orders of Ld. District and Sessions Judge, " Chandigarh, as the concerned PO has relinquished the charge. Now to come up on 18.08.2009 for the purpose already fixed. File be sent back to concerned Court immediately. Sd/-
Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-JMIC-Duty On 18.08.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:-
"Present: Counsel for the parties. Written statement by def. No.2 & 3 not filed. A date is requested. Heare Now to come up on 28.08.2009 for filing written statement by def. No.2&" Sd/- Sunil Kumar CJ(JD)/18.08.2009."
On 24.08.2009, i.e. 4 days before the date fixed, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:-
"Present: None. File taken up today as I have to avail joining time from 25.08.2009 to 31.08.2009 and 30.08.2009 being Sunday. As such, case is adjourned to 28.10.2009 for me purpose already fixed. Parties/counsel be informed accordingly. Date:24.08.2009. Sd/- Sunil Kumar CJ(JD)/RC/JMIC/Chandigarh"
On 28.10.009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:-
"Present Counsel for the parties. Written statement by def. No.2 & 3 not filed. However, an application for striking off defence of def. no./respondent no.2 & 3 has been moved by counsel for petitioners. Heard. In view of the reason mentioned in the application as well as submissions, the defence of def/respondents No.2 & 3 is hereby struck off. Now to come up on 25.11.2009 for consideration, Sd/- Sunil Kumar CJ(JD)/RC/28.10.2009."
On 25.11.2009, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order:-
"Pres
