JUDGMENT
N.G. Nandi, J.
(1) In this petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) the petitioner (judgment debtor) has been assailing the order passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No.32 of 1994, whereby an application under Section 151 of the Code for recording the compromise as well as the application under Order Xxi Rule 2 of the Code came to be dismissed.
(2) It is suggested that the respondent (decree holder) filed petition under Section 14(1)(a) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The A.R.C. passed orders under Section 15(4) of the Act directing the tenant to deposit rent w.e.f. 1.4.1988 @ Rs.150.00 per month. The tenant failed to comply with the directions requiring deposit of rent, as aforestated and consequently, the defense was struck off. Vide judgment dated 1.12.1993, a decree in ejectment was granted in favour of the present respondent. As regards the relief under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, the order passed under Section 15(4) of the Act was modified and the tenant was directed to pay or deposit the rent @ Rs.250.00 w.e.f. 1.10.1987. As this order was also not complied with, ultimately vide order dated 5.1.1994, decree for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act was passed. The decree holder, thereafter, filed execution petition for executing the decree in ejectment passed against the judgment debtor (present petitioner). In the execution proceedings, the judgment debtor prayed for recording of the compromise and recording the adjustment/satisfaction of the decree passed under Section 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(a) of the Act.
(3) It may be recalled that decree was under Section 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(a) of the Act. The compromise, which is prayed to be recorded and the decree adjusted/satisfied, copy whereof is to be found at Annexure-A. It is suggested therefrom that the tenant agreed to pay rent @ Rs.250.00 per month including electricity charges at Rs.100.00 per month; that the landlord had received rent upto 30.9.1987; that arrears of rent come to Rs.18,750.00 , out of which the tenant deposited rent in the court to the tune of Rs.1450.00 and Rs.1350.00 and the balance payable remained Rs.15,000.00 out of which the tenant paid Rs.7,500.00 on the date of compromise and the balance of Rs.7,500.00 was promised to be paid either in lump-sum or in easy installments upto 30.6.1994 and that from 1.1.1994 onwards, rent of Rs.250.00 per month and electricity charges of Rs.100.00 per month were agreed to be paid by the tenant to the landlord. It is also provided that if the tenant comply with the above terms and conditions, the landlord would withdraw his eviction petition which was then pending in the court of Shri A.S.Yadav, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Thus, it will be seen that out of the arrears of rent of Rs.15,000.00 , Rs.7,500.00 were paid on 20.1.94 i.e. on the date of compromise and the remaining Rs.7500.00 were agreed to be paid on or before 30.6.1994 and on compliance with the terms and conditions embodied in the compromise, the landlord had agreed to withdraw the eviction case.
(4) It will be seen that the compromise dated 20.1.94 pertains to the claim/decree on the ground of arrears of rent for which the decree under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act was passed against the present petitioner/JD on 5.1.1994. It appears that the landlord as well as the tenant i.e. D.H. and the J.D. treated and considered on 20.1.1994 the eviction case to be pending in the court of Shri A.S.Yadav, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi despite the fact that the eviction petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 5.1.1994. It may be appreciated that the termination of the eviction proceedings before the A.R.C. and the compromise is within a span of about 15 days and may be that the parties may not be aware of the fact that the petition has been disposed of. Whatever be as it may, clause 7 of the compromise suggests the intention of the parties inasmuch as that if the tenant complies with the above terms and conditions (which would mean all the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 20.1.1994), the landlord would withdraw his said eviction petition from the court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Thus, call it eviction petition or execution proceeding, the proceedings for eviction of the tenant were agreed to be withdrawn by the landlord/D.H. only after compliance with the terms and conditions of the compromise. It may be appreciated that the payment of the balance amount of Rs.7500.00 was to be made on or before 30.6.1994 so the question of compliance with the terms and conditions of compromise dated 20.1.1994 or otherwise would be only after 30.6.1994 when the balance of Rs.7500.00 is paid, as agreed and it is only thereafter that the decree can be said to have been satisfied or adjusted. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondent/D.H. that it was only the decree u/s.14(1)(a) of the Act can be said to have been adjusted or settled and that the decree under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act would remain and that the D.H. would be entitled to execute the decree passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The intention of the parties appears to be that on compliance with all the terms and conditions of compromise dated 20.1.1994, the landlord/D.H. had agreed to withdraw the proceedings relating to the eviction, which would mean and include the decree passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act also and not only partial withdrawal of the eviction/ execution petition qua section 14(1)(a) of the Act keeping intact the decree under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. But that would be academic and would pale into insignificance having no effect on the outcome of this petition since the decree can not be said to have been adjusted or satisfied or settled since there is no compliance with all the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 20.1.1994, as contemplated by the parties, which was the intention and the condition for the same.
(5) In the above view of the matter, no jurisdictional error or infirmity is suggested from the impugned order and the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.
(6) Order accordingly. C.M.1565/97
(7) By this application, the petitioner/judgment debtor prays for the condensation of delay in depositing the rent required under the compromise dated 20.1.1994. It need hardly be said that the time to make payment, stipulated in the compromise/agreement can not be extended much less unilaterally by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Section 148 of the Code. The request in this C.M. does not deserve any credence and is liable to be dismissed as misconceived.
(8) Application dismissed accordingly.