NOOR MOHAMMED Vs. C NAVARATHANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are by the same petitioner, who is a tenant of the respondent-landlord, in respect of a non-residential premises.

(2.) The landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground that he required the scheduled premises for his personal use and occupation in order to use them as a godown. Eviction was also sought on the ground of default in payment of rents by the tenant. In his statement of objections, the petitioner denied that he was in arrears of rent. As to the landlord's assertion that premises were required for his bow fide use and occupation for the purpose of godown, in view of his existing premises being small, the tenant denied them generally as being not within his knowledge; however, other averments in the eviction petition were admitted as true, such as - the tenant having failed to vacate the premises though he promised to vacate on being informed of the bona fide requirements of the landlord and that landlord would suffer irreparable loss, harm and injury if the order of eviction was not made. Eviction petition is dated 18-1-1989 and the statement of objection is dated 22-3-1989. On 22-3-1989, parties were examined and the case was beard. Landlord repeated his requirements in his deposition, which aspect was not cross-examined; he also stated that the petitioner was due in a sum of Rs. 13,200/- towards rent. The petitioner stated in his deposition - "I am tenant under the petitioner. I will not vacate full portion. I can vacate half portion within one month. I am liable to pay Rs. 13,000/- rent. I will pay in one month. I am vacating half portion with my will. It is required for the purpose of godown by the landlord."

(3.) On the same day an application was also filed under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure duly signed by the parties and their advocates. The petitioner herein conceded the bona fide requirement of the landlord and agreed to vacate half the premises provided a month's time was granted to him to vacate; the landlord had no objection to the grant of time. Thereafter court made the order, accepting the compromise petition and directed the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of half portion of the schedule premises in favour of the landlord within one month.