Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The controversy in this C.R.P. has its seed in the womb of the compromise which was entered into between the parties in the earlier round of litigation. It relates to executability of the compromise decree in proceeding initiated by the petitioner under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "the Act'). The petitioner is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant. The landlady filed an application for eviction of the tenant in R.C.C.No. 9 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kavali, on two grounds, viz., i) wilful default, and ii) bona-fide requirement for the business of her son. The parties compromised and the learned Principal District Munsif passed decree in terms of compromise on 24-11-1988. Pursuant to the said compromise decree the tenant was to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlady on or before September 30,1991. As the tenant failed to do so, the landlady filed E.P.No. 102 of 1991. The tenant raised the objection that the compromise decree of eviction is nullity and the same is not executable. The executing court held that the decree was nullity and not executable and accordingly dismissed the E.P. on January 23,1992. The validity of this order is questioned in this C.R.P.

10. Ferozi Lal v. Man Mal, arose under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings the landlord and the tenant entered into a compromise and a decree of eviction was passed in terms of the compromise. When the decree was sought to be executed the tenant raised an objection that he was not bound by the decree. Thereafter a second compromise was entered into between the parties. In addition to the four years period that he had under the first compromise, he was given further time for vacating the premises. After expiry of the extended period the tenant again resisted the execution of the decree inter alia on the ground that the compromise decree was in contravention of Section 13 of the said Rent Control Act and was therefore nullity as such not executable. The executing Court as well as the High Court accepted the contention. On appeal to the Supreme Court it was observed:

16. In Roshan Lal v. Madan Lal, the question of executability of a compromise decree passed in eviction proceedings initiated under the Madhya Pradesh Accomodation Control Act, fell for consideration of the Supreme Court. On consideration of its earlier judgments, their Lordships declared the law as follows:

"If, however, parties choose to enter into a compromise due to any reason such as to avoid the risk of protracted litigating expenses, it is open to them to do so. The Court can pass a decree on the basis of the compromise. In such a situation the only thing to be seen is whether the compromise is in violation of the requirement of the law. The compromise must indicate either on its face or in the background of other materials in the case that the tenant expressly or impliedly is agreeing to suffer a decree for "viction because the landlord, in the circumstances, is entitled to have such a decree under the law."

17. In Suleman Noormohamed v. Umarbhai, , a case under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, the Supreme Court considered the question of executability of the compromise decree passed under that Act and observed, -

"Where an eviction suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, was disposed of on compromise between the parties, the tenant having either expressly or impliedly suffered a decree for eviction as being liable to be evicted in accordance with Section 12 (3) (b) of the Act, and there was abundant intrinsic material in the compromise itself to indicate that the decree passed upon its basis was not in violation of the Act but was in accordance with it, the compromise decree was not a nullity and could be executed on non-compliance."