RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is filed by a tenant who has lost before both the Courts below. His fate here also does not seem to be different. A revision filed in the year 2003 is still being heard at limine stage.
(2.) ON 23.9.2004, the revision petition was adjourned sine die as the petitioner had died and application for impleading his L.Rs was required to be filed. The petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 7.3.2006, when neither the counsel appeared nor the necessary application for impleading the L.Rs was filed. The revision was restored on 14.12.2007 and was directed to be put up for motion hearing as per the roster. On 11.1.2008, the application for impleading the L.Rs of petitioner, Radhey Shyam, was allowed and the revision was posted for hearing the arguments on merits. Counsel for the petitioner was heard but the Court was not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders on any of the legal or factual submissions that were made. Faced with this situation, the counsel sought adjournment to see in case he can negotiate with the landlord. On the request made by Mr. A.C.Jain, the counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned to 29.4.2008. On the said date, Mr. Arun Yadav, appeared to represent the petitioner instead of Mr. A.C.Jain and started making submissions on merits. Noticing that the case had only been adjourned to enable the petitioner to negotiate with the landlord, the conduct of the petitioner in changing the counsel was noticed and directions were issued for Mr. A.C.Jain to appear before the court. Mr. Arun Yadav did not appear on the next date i.e. 30.4.2008. Mr. A.C.Jain, however, came present and pointed out that he had given no objection certificate, clearly indicating that time had only been granted for the purpose of negotiation and not for hearing arguments on merits. The petitioner, at that stage, appeared in person and made allegations of some demand of money against previous counsel and some other grievances. He was directed to file an affidavit in this regard, which he has done and the matter of allegation is being dealt separately.
(3.) TO be fair to the petitioner, the Court, by ignoring the background as noticed above, provided the services of Mr. Arun Palli, Senior counsel of this Court as Amicus-curiae despite the fact that the petitioner had been afforded full opportunity of hearing on merits earlier. It is in this background that Mr. Palli has been heard on merits. The facts and the grounds that are pleaded in the revision petition, noticed in brief, are as under :-;