RAJESH BINDAL J. - (1.) THE tenants had filed the present petition against the order of eviction dated 23.7.2013 passed by the appellate authority, whereby their eviction was ordered on the ground of personal necessity. The petition was listed for the first time on 28.10.2013, when counsel for the petitioners made a statement that he does not wish to press the present petition on merits in case some reasonable time is granted for vacation of the premises in dispute.
(2.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid statement, notice of motion was issued to the respondent for 19.11.2013 and status quo regarding possession was granted. The order passed by this court on 28.10.2013 is extracted below: "Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not wish to press the present petition on merits in case some reasonable time is granted to the petitioners for vacation of the premises in dispute considering the fact that they have to make alternative arrangements for shifting the business. They are in possession of the property in dispute as tenants for the last 42 years. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners, notice of motion for 19.11.2013. Process Dasti only. In the meantime, status quo regarding possession shall be maintained by the parties." Thereafter, the case was adjourned on four occasions. Review application dated 25.2.2014 was filed by the petitioners on 26.2.2014 along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 92 days for review of the order passed by this court on 28.10.2013. It is claimed in the application that the counsel, who made the statement was never instructed to do so. The application was filed in person by petitioner No. 2 -Paramjit Singh. Once the petition was not pressed on merits on the very first date of hearing and time was being sought for vacation thereof, the petitioners cannot be permitted to address arguments on merits now, especially with the change of counsel.
(3.) AS far as review application is concerned, as this court did not pass any order on 28.10.2013, but had merely recorded the statement made by counsel for the petitioners, no question of entertainment of application of review arises.;