Som Dutt & Anr vs. Raj Nath Gupta
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original tenant Shri Som Dutt, sought a review of a High Court order dated 07.02.2022. This order had recorded a settlement between the landlord (respondent) and the tenants (petitioners), wherein the tenants agreed to vacate the tenanted premises upon receiving Rs. 30 lacs from the landlord. The settlement also stipulated that the tenants would vacate by 15.06.2022, and the landlord would deposit the settlement amount in an interest-bearing FDR within four weeks. The review petitioners contended that their consent was not obtained for the settlement, and therefore, the consent order was invalid. They argued that a compromise entered into by an advocate without the litigant's authority is of no consequence. The landlord argued that the original tenant's legal heirs were represented by the same counsel throughout the proceedings, and the impleaded legal heirs, including the one in occupation, were implicitly represented.
Held
The Court held that the propositions of law cited by the review petitioners regarding consent orders and advocates' authority are not applicable to the present case. The Court reasoned that the order dated 07.02.2022 clearly recorded that the counsel had instructions from the petitioners, which logically included all impleaded parties, including the present review petitioners. The Court noted that the same set of counsel had represented the petitioners from the beginning. Furthermore, the Court observed that one of the legal heirs, Sh. Rohit Dhingra, who had moved the application for impleadment and was in occupation of the premises, was implicitly represented. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain and Another, which held that an eviction petition against one of the joint tenants is sufficient against all joint tenants, as joint tenancy is a single tenancy. Therefore, all legal heirs of the deceased tenant were duly represented when the settlement was recorded. The Court found no cause for reviewing the order dated 07.02.2022.
Key Issues
1. Whether a consent order recorded by the Court is liable for review when some of the parties, who were impleaded as legal heirs of the original tenant, claim their consent was not obtained, and the order was passed under a mistaken impression of consent? (Question of law) 2. Whether a compromise entered into or recorded by an Advocate without the authority of the litigant party is of no consequence, and if so, does it apply to the present case where the review petitioners claim lack of authority? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that if a consent order is passed without the actual consent of all parties, it is of no consequence and the review petition is maintainable. They relied on the principle that a compromise entered into by an advocate without authority is invalid, citing Harischandra Jha and Others v. Dinesh Narain Jha and Others and Ramkaran v. Shrikishan and Others. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the counsel appearing for the petitioners had instructions from all the petitioners, including the review petitioners, as the same set of counsel represented them throughout. They further contended that the representation by one of the joint tenants, especially one in occupation of the premises, is sufficient, citing Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain and Another.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2022
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing). REVIEW PET. 178/2022 (by petr. for review of order dt. 07.02.2022) CM APPL. 31811/2022 (stay), CM APPL. 31812/2022 (exmp.) CM APPL. 31813/2022 (for delay of (days not mentioned) in filing rev. Petition)
This petition seeks review of the order dated 07.02.2022 which recorded a settlement between the landlord and the tenants wherein the latter had agreed to vacate the premises on being paid by the landlord i.e., Rs.30 lacs three-times the amount earlier paid by the tenant to the landlord towards use and occupation charges. The order dated 07.02.2022, inter alia, reads as under:- “…1. The case was argued at length.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioners was heard. After he concluded his arguments, the matter was passed over, to enable him to obtain instructions. Having done so, he states that the petitioners would not like to press the petition on merits and they will vacate the tenanted premises and for doing so some time may be granted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
During the passover, the parties have reached a settlement. The This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/06/2026 at 10:26:39 learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that more than twice the amount which has been paid towards use and occupation charges will be returned to the petitioner/tenant. The latter has paid an amount of Rs.10 lacs, the landlord is ready to pay him back Rs.20 lacs along with the charges towards shifting of their goods and wares, etc. Indeed, exhibiting a larger humanitarian facet and emphasize his urgent bonafide need of the premises, the landlord is ready to pay Rs.30 lacs inclusive of all expenses, as may be, towards shifting. The tenant has readily accepted the offer.
The landlord is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.30 lacs, to be kept in an interest bearing FDR, which could be released to the tenant upon his vacating the premises. Let it be so done.
The aforesaid monies shall be deposited in four weeks‟ time. The tenant undertakes to vacate the premises on or before 15.06.2022. An affidavit of undertaking shall be filed by the petitioner within three weeks from today in the terms of the above. It will be open to the parties to approach the court in case of any difficulty.
The petition along with the pending applications is disposed-off accordingly…”
The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that R.C. Revision Petition had been filed on behalf of tenant Shri Som Dutt (now deceased) and his son viz., Sh. Sandeep Dhingra. Pursuant to the demise of Shri Som Dutt, his other son Rohit Dhingra had moved the application being CM No.10796/2019 seeking impleadment of his mother, himself and his third brother, namely Sh. Lalit Dhingra. By the order dated 06.05.2019, the said application (being CM No.10796/2019) was allowed. They were supposed to file an amended memo of parties. However, the same was not done.
It is to be noted that the same set of counsel have been appearing in this case right from the beginning. The petition was first listed on 25.05.2018 and the same set of counsel have appeared for the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/06/2026 at 10:26:39 petitioners from the beginning till the disposal of the petition on 07.02.2022. The said order records that the representation was on behalf of the petitioners, which includes the present review petitioners as well. On the said date, the case had been heard and instructions were sought by the petitioners’ counsel before final orders could be passed. The order records the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the settlement was on the basis of instructions received from the petitioners. Logically, the same would include even the present review petitioners.
The learned counsel for the review petitioners says that where a consent order is passed under the mistaken impression that all parties have consented to the terms of the compromise, whereas in reality, consent of all the parties had not actually been taken, then the compromise would be of no consequence, therefore the application for review is maintainable. In this regard, he relies upon the dicta in Harischandra Jha and Others v. Dinesh Narain Jha and Others, AIR 1958 Patna 521 (V 45 C 167). He further submits that in cases where a compromise is entered into or recorded by an Advocate without authority of the litigant party, then such a compromise would be of no consequence. In support of his contention, he relies upon the decision in Ramkaran v. Shrikishan and Others, AIR 1976 Rajasthan 130. 5. There can be no dispute to the aforesaid propositions of law. However, they are not applicable in the present case for the simple reason that the said order records that the counsel had instructions from the petitioners i.e., all the petitioners who have been impleaded as parties by way of the order dated 06.05.2019 and the same set of counsels have been This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/06/2026 at 10:26:39 representing all the petitioners all along. The court is also informed that Sh. Rohit Dhingra is carrying on his business from the tenanted premises and he had moved the application for impleadment. Surely, instructions from him are implied in the aforesaid instructions to counsel. In any case, representation by one of the joint tenants is more than sufficient, as is in the present case. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain and Another (2018) 6 SCC 708, inter alia, as under:- “…24 We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail…”
That being the position, all the legal heirs of late Shri Som Dutt were duly represented on the date the settlement was recorded in the court on 07.02.2022, as quoted hereinabove.
The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that Vakalatnama has not been filed by all the parties who have been impleaded and no advocate appeared on their behalf. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/06/2026 at 10:26:39 8. The court would note that it is not in dispute that the person who sought impleadment of the LRs, is the son of Shri Som Dutt (now deceased) as well as brother of some of the parties who are review petitioners. He is in occupation of the premises; he has a GST registration in his name and is carrying on business from the tenanted premises. Surely, the review petitioner knew fully well about the pendency of the case and/or the rights of the father since he passed away.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no cause for reviewing the order dated 07.02.2022. The review petition, along with pending applications, is accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J AUGUST 25, 2022/rd
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/06/2026 at 10:26:39
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.