LAKSHMI NARAYAN Vs. S S PANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by Special Leave, are directed against the common order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in C.R.P. Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 1996 on June 19, 1997 (reported in 1997 AIHC 3444) confirming the order of the Small Cause Court at Madras (executing Court) dated February 20, 1995.

(2.) The appellant is the owner of premises Nos. 31 and 32, measuring four thousand feet, of Namasivaya Chetty Lane, Madras (for short, 'the suit premises') and the respondent is the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant filed eviction petition (R. C.O.P. No. 2852 of 1989) under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction of the respondent, which was decreed ex parte on May 2, 1990. The appellant (decree-holder) filed E. P. No. 459 of 1990 in the Small Cause Court at Madras for execution of the said ex parte decree to have the respondent (judgment-debtor) evicted from the suit premises. During the pendency of the execution proceedings the parties entered into a compromise outside the Court on November 7, 1990. Pursuant thereto, the respondent surrendered possession of the front portion of Door No. 32, measuring 840 square feet, and for the rest of the suit premises, viz., Door No. 31 and a back portion of Door No. 32 (for short, 'the premises'), the parties entered into an agreement of lease for three years, rate of rent remaining the same. The compromise, inter alia, provides that if the respondent fails to vacate the premises on the expiry of the said period, the appellant will be entitled to have the decree executed against him and get possession of the same. On filing the memo of compromise in the Court, the E. P. was dismissed as 'not pressed'.

(3.) Just before the expiry of the said period, the appellant by a written notice, sent by his advocate, asked the respondent to hand over vacant possession of the premises on November 6, 1993, the date on which the period of three years would expire. On the respondent failing to do so, the appellant filed a fresh E. P. (No. 664 of 1993), for execution of the decree for recovery of possession of the premises and the executing Court ordered delivery of possession on November 16, 1993. While so, the respondent filed E. A. No. 973 of 1993, praying for recalling the order of November 16, 1993 and for dismissal of the E. P. The appellant also filed E. A. No. 299 of 1994 for permission to amend the description of the property in the execution petition. On February 20, 1995 the executing Court by a common order dismissed the appellant's petition and allowed the respondent's petition. The appellant filed the aforementioned two Civil Revision Petitions in the High Court challenging the validity of the said common order. The High Court dismissed the revision petitions by the impugned order and thus the appellant is before us in these appeals.