Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Plaintiff/ decree-holder instituted the present execution petition on 9-3-1992 for seeking eviction of the defendant/judgment debtor on the ground of default in the payment of rent under the terms of the compromise decree. During the pendency of the execution petition, the executing Court passed order dated 18-9-1992 which reads as under:

3. Vide the afore-said order the decree holder was asked to lead evidence to establish defaults under the decree. Judgment-debtor/present petitioner filed a revision Petition No. 197/98 against the afore-said order before this Court which was decided vide judgment dated 7-7-1999 holding that the order passed is not a case decided and no revision is maintainable. After the afore-said order the judgment debtor raised the objection regarding the executability of the decree. This objection prevailed with the Executing Court and resultantly the execution petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 29-9-1999. This order again became subject matter of revision in Civil Revision No. 160/99 which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 12-4-2001. This Court set aside the order of the executing Court and directed to proceed ahead with the execution petition in accordance with law. The executing Court consequently passed the impugned order dated 4-12-2003. From the impugned order it appears that after the remand of the case the executing Court was confronted with the plea of the defendant/judgment debtor that the defaults are required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act and that the rent of the shop is being deposited before the Court. The judgment debtor also produced receipts of deposit of the rent before the Court. The executing Court after hearing the parties vide the impugned order has held that the rent deposited with the court is not in accordance with the terms of the compromise deed and the plaintiff is not required to adopt the procedure prescribed under the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, the issue having been decided by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 160/99. The decree holder has accordingly preferred the present revision petition against the findings of the executing court and the order of issuance of warrant of delivery of possession.

19. In another case Kaushalaya Devi v. K.L. Bansal (Supra), (1969) 1 SCC 59. in a suit for eviction filed by the landlord the tenant denied the existence of the grounds in the written statement. However, the parties entered into compromise and the trial Court on the basis of the said compromise passed the following order:-

"In view of the statement of the parties' counsel and the written compromise a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."

20. The decree was to be executed after the time stipulated in the compromise. The tenant did not vacate the premises on the expiry of the time mentioned in the decree and filed an application under Section 47 CPC on the ground that the decree is void having been passed in contravention of Section 13 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, The High Court declared the decree as a nullity as the order was passed solely on the basis of the compromise without indicating that any of the statutory grounds mentioned in Section existed. The Apex Court up-held the judgment of the High Court.

22. In the above case the suit was based upon default in payment of rent. There was a specific claim of rent. The tenant admitted the liability and suffered the decree by consent. Apex Court accepted the compromise as valid in view of the material admission of liability which constitute a ground for eviction under the concerned Rent law.

23. In the instant case the suit was not based upon default in payment of arrears of rent. As a matter of fact there was no claim for arrears of rent nor the decree was sought on the basis of the defaults in the payment of rent. It was for the first time in the compromise deed that it was incorporated that if in future the tenant commits defaults in the payment of three months rent in succession he will be liable for eviction by executing the decree. The compromise to the extent it entitles the landlord/respondent to evict the petitioner on commission of three consecutive defaults of one month each in the payment of rent is clearly prohibited by Section 11 (1). This prohibition can be removed only if three successive defaults of two months each are committed by the tenant in the payment of two months rent on each occasion in succession and after the first default a notice of demand is issued by the landlord in accordance with the provision and method specified under Section 12 of the Act. Neither it was a case in the suit in which compromise was entered into nor it is a case after the passing of the decree. Therefore, the decree entitling the landlord to evict the tenant merely if three months rent in succession remains un-paid cannot be said to be a valid decree as the same is not based upon any pleadings or material as envisaged under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. The consent of the tenant to suffer a decree in future is un-consequential.

24. Undoubtedly, the executing court cannot go beyond the decree, but at the same time Section 47 of the CPC empowers the executing Court to decide all questions relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree. If an agreement i.e. a Compromise is sought to be enforced through the executing court, the same is required to see whether the same is prohibited by law or not and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the law prohibits enforcement of such a contract/decree, the court has to determine that question and pass appropriate orders.