Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Submission of learned counsel for the tenants-petitioners is that the orders impugned herein are illegal, perverse and suffer from manifest error of law. It is next submitted that in view of provisions of Section 21(1)A of Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop in question, prescribed authority ought to record its findings in respect of the bona fide need and comparative hardship. It is further submitted that the court below in its judgement 25.10.2008 passed in original suit no. 380 of 2004 recorded a finding that after the death of Raj Bahadur Jain the tenancy right devolved to his legal heirs. It is further submitted that application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 23 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was not maintainable as all the legal heirs of Raj Bahadur Jain was not impleaded. He lastly submits that the respondent-landlord has already got the other shop and the same was let out to another person and as such, the need of the respondent-landlord is not at all bona fide.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the property was required for personal use of landlord and family of the landlord being Surendra Prakash Garg. Consequently, an appeal under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed before the prescribed authority and that since the tenant Raj Bahadur Jain could not defend against the personal need of the landlord and admittedly entered into a compromise and since the tenant was old person, therefore, taking a sympathetic view of the matter a settlement was arrived at between the landlord and the tenant and compromise to this effect was entered into and filed on 1.11.1994 in the aforesaid PA Case No. 27 of 1992. According to this, the release application was allowed in part and out of the total area of shop being 7.9 ft x 23 ft a shop having 5.6 ft x 12 ft was repaired / constructed and was left in possession of the tenant on the condition that he will remain in possession till his lifetime and thereafter there will be no succession of any right devolving tenancy on legal heirs. The tenant was barred from giving possession of the shop. It was decided that he shall continue to pay rent @ Rs. 18/- per month, which was the earlier rent of the entire accommodation, which will not be changed during his lifetime. It was further provided that the legal heirs shall handed over possession of the shop after death of the original tenant, Raj Bahadur Jain and it was left open that if they failed to do so, the process of recovery of possession of the shop may be initiated as admittedly, compromise was entered into between the landlord and tenant. Although, petitioners herein claimed that they were not aware of such compromise and that they were only aware of this fact that the part of the shop in possession of Raj Bahadur Jain, their predecessor, was handed over to the landlord. It is submitted that this fact itself is sufficient to indicate that the petitioners were aware of this fact that the release application has been compromised on the basis of a compromise and the compromise was admittedly acted upon and the original tenant had, in fact, taken benefit of the same by avoiding the possession of the release application as well as by remaining in possession of a part of the shop. Submission is that the original tenant had, in fact, admitted the bonafide need of the landlord and agreed to release the shop in part and it is only on that basis the compromise was entered into and undisputedly, is a part of the order of the judgment of the prescribed authority. Submission, therefore, is that now the petitioners herein cannot go back on the compromise entered into by the original tenant on technical ground as the compromise was acted upon and they have enjoyed fruits of the compromise for such long years from 1994 to 2014 till the filing of the present litigation for obtaining possession of the shop under tenancy when the petitioners failed to vacate the same. He further submitted that the Original Suit No. 380 of 2014 filed by the petitioners herein for permanent injunction against the landlord was not maintainable and in any case, has no effect on the proceedings before the prescribed authority, moreso, when the landlord adopted proper procedure of law for taking back the possession. It is submitted that the said suit was barred under Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act and was not maintainable. He further submitted that in any case, the tenancy right stood extinguished in view of the compromise of the year 2004 and that the status of Raj Bahadur Jain was that of a licensee thereafter till his death, which stood terminated on his death. Submission, therefore, is that the petitioners did not have any right to acquire any tenancy right in place of Raj Bahadur Jain and the present process is nothing but an abuse of process of law as the compromise was acted upon and the petitioners have enjoyed the fruits of the compromise, which was never disputed by Raj Bahadur Jain and he enjoyed the possession in pursuance of part release only till his death and even the rent was never enhanced.

8. I have considered the submissions and have perused the record.

9. On perusal of record I find that the crux of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that if the compromise decree is contrary to statutory provisions, the same is a nullity and cannot be executed. Placing reliance on judgment already referred above crux of the submission is that since prescribed authority had not satisfied itself and that the bonafide need and comparative hardship had not examined any relevant material to find out whether the statutory provisions ground of eviction are proved, the compromise decree, purely on that basis, was a nullity. In the present case, from perusal of record it is clear that the original tenant Raj Bahadur Jain was in possession of a shop measuring 7.9 ft x 23 ft and in the release application filed on the ground of personal need of the family, he agreed to remain in possession of the shop 5.6 ft wide x 12 ft. deep only, which was to be handed over to him by the landlord after the order of the court within 15 days. The compromise further reflects that the old rent @ Rs. 18/- per month was to continue. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that this release application was filed in the year 1992 and even on that point of time Raj Bahadur Jain was old tenant on a meagre rent (old rent) of Rs. 18/- per month, which was not to be increased till he was to remain in possession. The tenant Raj Bahadur Jain clearly stated that he has only daughters and no son, he, therefore, agreed in his wisdom that he will remain in possession of the shop till his lifetime and thereafter, the tenancy shall not devolve on his legal heirs. This fact was specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 of the terms of the compromise and there was a clear understanding that neither his daughters nor their husbands shall claim any tenancy over the shop left in possession of Raj Bahadur Jain and shall hand over the possession to the landlord and if they failed to do so, the landlord will be at liberty to take possession through court. Paragraph 4 of the terms clearly indicates that the expenses for repair of the shop (after making the shop smaller to be left in occupation of the tenant) was to be borne by the landlord. This compromise is not in dispute and is an admitted document. It is also not in dispute that this compromise was acted upon and the release application was decided accordingly. For ready reference terms of the compromise are quoted as under:-