PRITHVICHAND RAMCHAND SABLOK Vs. S Y SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The appellant, landlord, filed an eviction suit No. 419 of 1968 for possession of the demised premises mainly on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). That suit was settled between the parties, the relevant terms whereof read as under:

(3.) The arrears so calculated worked out to Rs. 3353.58p. as on 10th October, 1970. The tenant, however, paid a sum. of Rs. 2040/- only on 9th February, 1970 and, therefore, did not comply with the terms regarding payment of entire arrears on or before 10th October, 1970. Thereupon, the decree-holder filed execution proceedings on 2nd November, 1970. The tenant raised objections in regard to the executability of the decree. The Executing Court rejected the objections raised by the tenant and issued a warrant for possession of the demised premises under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'the Code). The tenant preferred an appeal against the order of the Executing Court which came to be allowed. The order of the Executing Court was set aside and the prayer for eviction was dismissed. The decree-holder moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Court and remitted the matter to the Appellate Court with a direction to decide the character of the compromise terms on the basis of which eviction was sought. After the matter went back to the Appellate Court that court re-considered the matter and once again allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Executing Court directing issuance of warrant under Order 21, Rule 35 of the Code. The Appellate Court dismissed the execution proceedings altogether. Against that order passed by the Appellate Court the decree-holder once again moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court considered the various submissions made before it by the rival parties and summarised the propositions emerging from the relevant provisions and the case law in paragraph 32 of the judgment as under: