The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by tenant Santosh Gosain, who sought to challenge an eviction order. The judgment highlighted the fundamental principle that a litigant cannot evade responsibility by blaming their legal counsel and reaffirmed the authority of lawyers to act on client instructions.
The dispute arose when the tenant’s defence was struck off for non-payment of rent under an application filed by the landlord under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While a Civil Judge initially ruled in the tenant’s favour, the High Court reversed the decision, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The tenant contended that their lawyer had acted without instructions in giving an undertaking to the High Court to deposit the arrears, which ultimately led to the striking off of their defence. However, the Apex Court, after reviewing the High Court record, found that the tenant had been present in Court, had indeed instructed their lawyer, and had failed to comply with not just one but two separate undertakings given to the High Court.
The Court observed that the tenant’s attempt to shift blame onto the advocate demonstrated a “recalcitrant attitude” and constituted a serious attempt to obstruct the administration of justice. Describing such conduct as something that needed to be “curbed with iron hands,” the Court dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of ₹10,000 to the Chief Minister’s Flood Relief Fund.
Case Title: Santosh Gosain Versus M/S Beli Ram Sareen & Anr
Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 43452/2025
Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice N.V. Anjaria
Picture Source :