Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"A. That the defendant-appellant will give up possession of an area of 7' x 7 ' more or less in the south-western corner of the room in suit in his possession in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of this compromise and will allow the plaintiff within that period an access to that area. The said space will be walled up to the ceiling at the cost of the plaintiff and within one month. In the event of noncompliance with the terms contained above for his default the defendant appellant will be liable to ejectment in execution of the decree passed in the suit in terms of the compromise.

The Bhowals made a Review Application No.11/92 before the High Court to review its order of 25.9.1992. This was dismissed by the High Court by its order of 20.1.1993. Civil Appeal No.3054/95 which is before us is from this order of 20.1.1993 dismissing the review application.

Thus Civil Appeal Nos.6649 of 1983. 3055 and 3056 of 1995. 3052 of 1995 and 3054 of 1995 deal with the execution of the compromise decree of 10.5.1965.

Are the Debs entitled to evict the Bhowals from land admeasuring 1 Katha and 7 Chataks as also the building standing thereon, in execution of the compromise decree of 10.5.1965? It is necessary to first examine the terms of the consent decree of 10.5.1965. Clause A of the consent terms hes been set out earlier, It requires the Bhowals to give up possession of an area of 7' x 7' in the South-Western corner of the room in the suit property. The clause further provides, "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 x 7', they can be ejected from this portion in execution of the compromise decree.

The next part of the compromise decree deals with possession by the Bhowals of the rest of the building located on 1 Katha 7 Chataks of land. Under Clause C of the consent terms the Bhowals are permitted to remain in possession of the rest of the building as monthly tenants of the Debs for a period of ten years from Ist of May 1965 till 30th of April, 1975 on payment of a rent of Rs.255/- per month. Clause D prohibits the Bhowals from sub-letting or transferring any portion of the said premises . It further provides that on the expiry of the period of ten years the Bhowals will vacate and deliver possession of the said premises to the Debs. Clause I provides. "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' x 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 of 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 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.

The consent decree of 10.5.1965 had created and/or continued the relationship of landlord and tenant as between the Deb and the Bhowals for a further period of ten years. If the Bhowals are entitled to the protection of Section 5 of the Assam non-agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act. 1955, they are entitled to avail of this protection in a court of law. Such a question cannot be decided in execution proceedings. The compromise decree did not contemplate ejectment of the Bhowals from the suit building in execution of the compromise decree. It provided that they would be ejected by taking an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. The Civil Appeals 3055-56 of 1995 and 3052 of 1995 as also 3054 of 1995 are required to be allowed in the above circumstances.