Admissions of fact made by a counsel are binding upon their principals or clients, as long as they are unequivocal

Harshit Sharma | Amity Law School, Madhya Pradesh | 6th February 2020

Om Prakash V/s. Suresh Kumar CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 833­834 OF 2020

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The facts very briefly are that the appellant being owner of the premises having three rooms with one veranda, admeasuring 36.53 square meters situated in Ward No. 6, M.C. Area, near Sabji Mandi, Up Mahal, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh (for short, “the suit premises”), had inducted the father of the respondent as its monthly tenant in the year 1969 to use it for non-residential purpose and the respondent was in occupation thereof when the appellant filed eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller for possession. The respondent, at the relevant time, was carrying on business as cloth merchant in the suit premises.
2. During the hearing of the said petition, the learned counsel for the respondent tenant had urged before the High Court that the tenant was ready and willing to handover possession of the suit premises subject to the landlord (present appellant) agreeing to reinduct him as tenant in equivalent area occupied by him in the suit building. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the present appellant, unequivocally, stated before the High Court that the appellant was not averse to the offer so made by the tenant.
3. The appellant changed his Advocate and then filed review petition before the High Court being Review Petition No. 65/2016, asserting that he had never instructed his counsel to make such statement before the Court regarding re­induction of the respondent tenant in the newly constructed shops. The said review petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2016. Consequently, both these decisions (dated 12.5.2016 and 24.8.2016) passed by the High Court are subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.

ISSUES RAISED

1. whether the appellant should be bound by the statement made by his counsel before the High Court that the respondent tenant will be reinducted in equal area in the newly constructed building within one month i.e. on or before 30.11.2017 from the date of completion of the construction work i.e. 31.10.2017? 

RULING OF THE COURT/THE COURT HELD THAT

While directing the arrangement that would result in compliance of the statement made on behalf of the appellant (through counsel) before the High Court and which was made the basis to dispose of the respondent’s revision petition and at the same time, minimise the loss of area to be made over to the respondent tenant and optimize the utility of the premises to be used by him for non-residential purpose after re­induction and also adequately compensate him for the loss of area. Apart from the same, the following observations were made by the Hon’ble Court: 

1. “The engagement was in respect of eviction proceedings and the statement was in relation to the commitment of the appellant qua the subject matter thereof and being an unequivocal statement, it will be binding on the appellant.” 
2. “Generally, admissions of fact made by a counsel are binding upon their principals as long as they are unequivocal; where, however, doubt exists as to a purported admission, the court should be wary to accept such admissions until and unless the counsel or the advocate is authorised by his principal to make such admissions A lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. We may add that in some cases, lawyers can make decisions without consulting the client. While in others, the decision is reserved for the client. It is often said that the lawyer can make decisions as to tactics without consulting the client, while the client has a right to make decisions that can affect his rights.”