The Supreme Court has strongly deprecated the conduct of a tenant who attempted to disown an undertaking given before the Court to deposit rent arrears, later claiming that his advocate made the statement without his instructions.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria dismissed the tenant’s petition and imposed a cost of ₹10,000, directing it to be deposited in the Punjab Chief Minister’s Flood Relief Fund.

The case arose out of eviction proceedings where the tenant had failed to deposit admitted rent arrears as mandated under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The tenant argued that his counsel had exceeded authority by giving an undertaking on his behalf. However, the High Court’s records clearly reflected that the tenant was personally present and had instructed counsel before the statement was made.

Emphasizing that the record of the Court is sacrosanct, the Supreme Court observed:

“We are not impressed by such arguments… The petitioner attempted to lay the blame on the advocate though he was present and had instructed counsel. Such conduct must be curbed with iron hands; otherwise, the stream of justice is likely to be polluted.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court’s decision to strike off the tenant’s defence in the eviction suit.

Cause Title: Santosh Gosain v. M/s Beli Ram Sareen & Anr.