P.K. VASUDEVA versus ZENOBIA BHANOT

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 378 · Decided: 11-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.K. VASUDEVA 
v. 
ZENOBIA BHANOT 
AUGUST 11,1999 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control & Eviction: 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-Section J 3A-Revision 
C Petitions filed by tenant against the order passed by Rent Controller after 
remand of case-High Court recalled earlier order of Single Judge dismissing 
revision petition on agreement of parties-Matter remanded to Rent 
Controller-Parties appeared before Rent Controller-Order of remand stood 
exhausted-Order passed on concession of counsel and the other party acted 
upon such order-Held, such order cannot be challenged by the tenant on 
D the ground that earlier order of dismissing revision petition passed by Single 
Judge having attained finality as it was not challenged by landlady-Hence, 
High Court rightly dismissed the tenants' revision petition challenging the 
order ·of Rent Controller passed on the basis of the remand order. 
E 
Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was 
F 
extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh which provided for immediate 
recovery of residential premises by a landlord who had retired from 
government service or was about to retire. The respondent-widow of retired 
government servant filed applications for eviction against four tenants residing 
in four separate tenements in a building. The Rent Controller passed orders 
of eviction against two of the four tenants. Aggrieved tenants filed revision 
petitions. The revision petitions were allowed giving option to the respondent 
to choose any one of the four tenants for eviction as per second proviso to 
Section 13A of the Act. Thereafter, following the decision of the High Court, 
the Rent Controller rejl'!cted the other applications of the respondent. The 
G respondent filed revision before High Court. The Division ~ench endorsed 
the view of the High Court t~at only one tenant could be evicted and the 
Single Judge following opinion of the Division Bench, dismissed the revision 
petitions on 10.05.1993. Thereafter, the respondent relying on the matter of 
Zenobia Bhanot v. P.K. Vasudeva filed an application before the High Court 
for setting aside the dismissal of eviction applications by the Rent Controller, 
H 
378 
-
.. 
P.K. VASUDEVA v. ZENOBIA BHANOT 
379 
in substance for recalling of order dated 10.5.1993. The Single Judge A 
recalled the earlier order of 10.5.1993 and allowed the revision petitions by 
remanding cases to the Rent Controller for decision on merits. The appellants 
filed the review petitions and they were dismissed. However, the appellant did 
not challenge the dismissal. Both the parties appeared before the Rent 
Controller and the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petitions filed by the B 
respondent. Thereafter, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions filed 
by the appellants against the eviction petitions. 
In appeals to this Court challenging the eviction petition the appellants 
contended that the order passed by the High Court on 10.5.1993 having 
attained finality could not have been recalled by the High Court by its C 
subsequent order. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. When an order is passed on concession of counsel and the D 
other party had acted upon such order then such order cannot be challenged 
by the tenant on the ground that earlier order of dismissing revision petition 
passed by Single Judge having attained finality as it was not challenged by 
landlady. (383-A) 
1.2. The sequence of the events shows that the order of the Single E 
Judge of the High Court was passed on the concession of the counsel for the 
appellants and was acted upon by other party when the Rent Controller 
decided the matter after remand. It stood exhausted when the parties appeared 
before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller decided the matter. 
Thereafter, there remained nothing to be challenged in the order. Once the F 
counsel for the appellants conceded before the High Court that the revision 
petitions required remand, it is no longer open to the appellants to contend 
that the order passed by the High Court could not have been passed. More 
so, the appellants filed review petitions against the order of the Single Judge 
recalling the earlier order but the same was rejected and this order at no 
stage was challenged. [383-B-D-EJ 
G 
Zenobia Bhanot v. P.K. Vasudeva, 11995) 6 SCC 770, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6325 of 1998 
Etc. 
H 
3

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.