S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Madhyan learned Seniorcounsel assisted by Sri Satish Madhyan for the contesting respondents. Sri Madhyan states that even though Vakalatnama has been filed only on behalf of respondent No. 3 but since respondents 4 to 9 are co-landlords, hence he is representing their interest also. A Senior Counsel is entitled to appear in any case even without filing his Vakalatnama.
(2.) Landlords/respondents filed a suit for eviction against the tenant-petitioners and proforma respondents being S.C.C. Suit No. 625 of 1971. The said suit was decreed on 31.7.2007. (Suit remained pending for 36 years?). Against the said judgment and decree tenant-petitioners filed Civil Revision. In the Civil Revision on 20.8.2007 an order was passed by the Incharge District Judge, Agra directing that tenant-revisionist should pay the entire decreetal amount within 15 days. It was further held in the said order that in view of Supreme Court authority reported in Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors, 2005 (1) S.C.C. 705 : 2005 (2) ARC 936 : 2005 SCFBRC 99 mesne profit is determined at Rs. 40,000/- per month. Thereafter an order was passed on 5.9.2007 dismissing the revision on the ground that order dated 20.8.2007 had not been complied with. In the order dated 20.8.2007 it had been mentioned that after deposit of the decreetal amount, question of admission of the revision would be decided. In my opinion, condition of deposit of decreetal amount and payment of enhanced rent in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, may be attached with the stay order. Admission or non-admission of the revision can not be linked with that, which is entirely independent matter.
(3.) Through amendment application dated 19.9.2007 the order dated 5.9.2007 dismissing the revision has been challenged. Amendment application is allowed.;