The Supreme Court has deprecated the conduct of a tenant who attempted to disown an undertaking given to the court to deposit rent arrears, claiming his advocate had made the statement without instructions. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the tenant, to be deposited in the Punjab Chief Minister’s Flood Relief Fund, while dismissing his special leave petition against the striking off of his defense in eviction proceedings.
The case involved eviction proceedings where the tenant claimed his lawyer exceeded instructions by consenting to deposit rent arrears. However, the High Court’s record indicated the tenant was personally present and had instructed counsel before the undertaking was given. The trial court had struck off the tenant’s defense under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code for non-compliance with the undertaking to pay admitted rent. The High Court reversed the trial court’s error in ignoring this, affirming the strike-off.
The Supreme Court, in its August 22, 2025, order, emphasized the sanctity of court records, stating: “Though, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant has made an effort to persuade this Court that the petitioner may be put on terms and leave may be granted to defend the case by tendering the evidence, we are not impressed by the said argument on account of recalcitrant attitude exhibited by the petitioner before the High Court and having made an attempt to lay the blame at the doors of the learned advocate who appeared on his/her behalf though he had appeared in court and had instructed the advocate to make such statement and had been denied. Such conduct should not only be deprecated but also should be curbed with iron hands as otherwise the stream of justice is likely to be polluted by such stray incidents as has happened in the instant case.”
The bench dismissed the petition with costs, underscoring that such attempts to shift blame undermine judicial integrity.
Case Details: Santosh Gosain v. M/s Beli Ram Sareen & Anr. | SLP (Civil) Diary No. 43452/2025
Click Here for Full Judgment.
Lawcutor 