Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"In the event of non-compliance with the terms contained above for his default the defendant- appellant (Bhowal) will be liable to ejectment in execution of the decree passed in the suit in terms of the compromise."

Clearly, therefore, if the Bhowals do not give up possession of this area of 7′ × 7′, they can be ejected from this portion in execution of the compromise decree.

"In the event of any breach of any condition mentioned above the defendant-appellant (Bhowals) will be liable to ejectment by appropriate action in a court of law."

There is a striking difference in the language used in clause A relating to ejectment and in clause I relating to ejectment. Clause A clearly contemplates ejectment of the Bhowals in execution of the compromise decree if they do not hand over possession of an area of 7′ × 7′. However, in respect of their tenancy relating to the rest of the building, if they commit any breach of any of the conditions stipulated in the compromise decree (which would presumably include the condition relating to handing over possession on the expiry of ten years) the Bhowals are liable to ejectment by appropriate action in a court of law. This is in contradistinction to the ejectment in execution of the compromise decree contemplated under clause A. In this context, ejectment by appropriate action in a court of law can only mean ejectment by taking action by filing a suit or taking any other proceeding in a court of law. Clearly, the parties did not contemplate ejectment by execution of the compromise decree in relation to a breach of clause C. This difference in the phraseology of clauses A and I is understandable because a tenant who may otherwise be liable to ejectment, may be protected by provisions of the Rent Act or by any other provision of law. This issue can only be adjudicated SKS,J properly in an appropriate proceeding and not in the execution of a decree. Had the intention been to allow the Bhowals only permissive possession for a period of ten years, and ejectment thereafter in execution of the compromise decree, the decree would have so provided. It does not do so. Therefore, assuming that the tenancy of the Bhowals has come to an end, the Debs cannot eject the Bhowals from the building in their possession without taking appropriate legal action by filing a suit for ejectment or in any other manner as may be permissible in law; but not by applying for execution of the compromise decree.