Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

43. The language in the consent decree contains ample intrinsic evidence to indicate intention to create new tenancy, as such in my opinion, parties did not contemplate ejectment by execution of the compromise decree. Had the intention been to allow the judgment debtor only permissive possession for a period of 15 years, and the ejectment thereafter in execution of the compromise decree, the parties would have said so.

44. One more piece of intrinsic evidence is available in the decree itself, that is for recovery of amount of damages and cost of suit determined in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The decree provides that in the event of default in payment, the decree holder can recover this part of the decree by initiating executing proceeding but no such right has been provided in the compromise decree in favour of the decree holder. Had the intention been to recover possession by putting the decree in execution, then the decree would have so provided. It does not do so, the difference in the mode provided in two different clauses is understandable because a tenant who may otherwise be liable to ejectment, may be protected by provisions of the Rent Act. Assuming that tenancy of the respondent has come to an end, the respondent cannot be evicted from the suit premises in his possession without taking appropriate action by filing suit for ejectment or in any manner as may be permissible in law but not by applying for execution of compromise decree. In this view the decree in question stood extinguished and discharged with the execution of the registered lease deed. Accordingly, issue No. (ii) is answered against the decree holder and in favour of the respondent/tenant.