- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2009 in CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.119 OF 2009 Yoginder Kumar Nanda & anr ... Applicants vs 1. Parvati Shankar Balgi & ors ... .Respondents Mr.R.A.Thorat i.b Mr.P.J.Ramchandani for Applicants Mr.Y.S.Bhate for Respondent nos. 1 to 7 CORAM: R.V.MORE,J DATED: October 15, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Thorat,learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Bhate learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 7. This Civil Application is filed for recalling the order dated 27th April, 2009 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 119 of 2009. 2. The applicant is the petitioner no. 2 in Civil Revision Application No.119 of 2009. The respondent nos. 1 to 7 are the landlords of the suit property and they filed a suit against the applicant and respondent nos. 8 to 13 by which a decree of eviction was claimed on the ground of bonafide requirement, subletting and nuisance. The trial Court granted decree of possession in respect of first floor of the suit premises on the ground of bonafide requirement. Further, decree in respect of the entire suit premises was granted on the ground of - 2 - subletting to respondent nos. 12-Shetye Automobiles. This decree came to be challenged by the applicants and the respondent nos. 8 to 13 in an appeal before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. However, the trial court’s decree came to be confirmed and therefore, respondent no. 13 and the present applicant preferred the above Civil Revision Application No. 119 of 2009 in this Court. 3. When the above Civil Revision Application was reached for admission on 27th April,2009, Mr.Khandeparkar argued the matter at length, however, at later stage, sought permission to withdraw the Revision Application with further request of grant of longer time to vacate. Accordingly, leave to withdraw the said Civil Revision Application was granted and longer time of one year was granted to vacate to the applicant and to the respondent nos. 13. 4. Mr.Thorat, learned counsel appearing for the applicants now submitted that the applicant (original petitioner no. 2 in Civil Revision Application) was neither present in court on 27th April, 2009 nor had given any instructions to the learned counsel Mr. Khandeparkar to withdraw the said Revision Application and therefore order dated 27th April, 2009 will not bind him and requested me to hear the Revision application on - 3 - merits. Mr.Thorat further submitted that the applicant has, now procured evidence that telephone connection was installed in the premises of the respondent no. 12 in the year 1957 and therefore the decree on the ground of subletting could not have been passed against the tenants and in favour of the landlords. Mr.Bhate on the contrary submitted that the present respondent no. 13 who was the petitioner no. 1 in Revision Application was handling the matter since inception and further submitted that the present applicant and the respondent no. 13 are cousions. He also submitted that Mr.Khandeparakar learned counsel who gave concession neither was impleaded nor his affidavit is filed on record by the applicant. He lastly submitted that the advocate has implied authority to withdraw the proceedings and therefore no interference is called for. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I do not find any substance in the present Civil Application for the reasons stated hereinafter : 6.Firstly,I must mention that the aforesaid Civil Revision Application was heard on 27th April 2009 on merits and when I was not inclined to interfere and & liberty was sought to withdraw the application with a prayer for a longer time to vacate the suit premises. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I - 4 - showed indulgence by granting permission to withdraw the revision application, with longer time to the petitioners to vacate the suit premises. 7. As far as objection of applicant that he did not permit his lawyer Mr. Khandeparkar to withdraw the Civil Revision Application is concerned, the same is without any merit. When the clients signs vakalatnama he gives an implied authority to his lawyer to do necessary things including withdrawal of the proceedings. 8. One cannot lose sight of the fact that it was case of the present applicant and of the respondent nos. 8 to 13 that the Standard Hotel i.e Respondent no.10 was being run by partnership firm consisting of successor in title of one Gyanchand Nanda and Sitaram Nanda. It is an admitted fact that the present applicant was not partner of the said Standard Hotel. The present applicant had also not filed any written statement in the trial court. It is borne out from the record that the present respondent no. 13 original petitioner no.1 was looking after litigation. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with in the Civil Application. 9. So far as Mr.Thorat’s submission regarding the evidence disclosing telephone connection in the premises of Shetye Automobiles in the year 1957 is concerned, the - 5 - same cannot be considered at this stage. Admittedly, no document in that regard was produced either before lower courts or this Hon’ble Court. For the first time that too, in the present application applicant has relied upon the said documents, in order to show sub-tenancy of respondent no.12 stands legalised by virtue of amendment in the Bombay Rent Act in the year 1973. Taking over all view of the matter, I do not find any substance in Civil Application and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. At this stage, Mr.Thorat seeks continuation of the interim order for a period of four weeks from today. Mr. Bhate has no objection if the interim order is continued for a period of four weeks. In that view of the matter and in the interest of justice interim orders granted earlier to continue for a period of four weeks from today. R.V.More, J - 6 -