Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4084 of 2010 Petitioner :- Awanish Kumar Kansal Respondent :- Addl. District Judge Court No. 1 & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- R.P. Shastri Respondent Counsel :- Illegible Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Sachan
appearing for respondent no. 3.
J.S.C.C. Suit was filed by the landlordrespondent no. 3 seeking
ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitionertenant. The
matter was referred to Lok Adalat where the parties entered into a
compromise and the dispute was decided on the basis of the
compromise. According to the terms of the compromise, the rent was
enhanced from Rs.400/ to Rs.800/ per month and in case of default,
the plaintifflandlord was entitled to recover the same and eject the
tenantpetitioner. When the petitioner failed to comply with the terms
of the compromise and did not make payment of the rent, landlord
respondent no. 3 filed a execution case. An objection under Section
47 of the Act was filed by the petitioner, which was rejected.
Aggrieved, the petitioner went up in revision, which was also
dismissed.
It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the
decree has been passed on the basis of the compromise as such the
same could not have been put to execution and in case there is a
default, it is open to the landlordrespondent to have given notice
terminating the tenancy and filed a suit for ejectment. In support of
the contention, reliance has been placed on a Apex Court decision in
the case of Bibekananda Bhowal (dead) by L.R.s. vs. Satindra
Mohan Deb (dead) by L.R.s., AIR 1996 SC 1985.
In reply, learned counsel for the landlordrespondent no. 3 has tried
to justify the impugned order.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
Both the courts below have held that the petitioner has defaulted in
making payment of the rent as agreed in the compromise. The court
below has further held that in view of clause (3) of the compromise
which gave a right to the respondentlandlord of recovery of arrears
of rent and ejectment, it literally means that in case of default of the
terms of the agreement, the decree was liable to be executed. The
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court relying upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present
case inasmuch as in the said case, the terms of the compromise
decree provided that the defendant would liable to be evicted after
expiry of 10 years by appropriate action in a court of law and thus,
the Hon’ble Apex Court interpreted that the compromise decree was
not liable to be executed and the plaintiff could exercise right
conferred under the compromise decree by bringing appropriate
action in a court of law.
In the case in hand, the fact is entirely different. The petitionertenant
has agreed in the compromise that he shall be liable to be ejected in
case of default. The said decree was passed on 27.5.2007 and within
a period of one year, he defaulted as such, the landlordrespondent
no. 3 had to move execution application in August, 2008.
The petitioner having wilfully defaulted and in view of clause (3) of
the agreement between the parties, the execution proceedings were
rightly initiated by the respondentlandlord and the objection filed by
the petitionertenant under Section 47 of the Act has rightly been
dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, the impugned order
does not call for any interference by this Court.
The petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2010
nd