C L SEETHARAM Vs. J C RUDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree holder who is the respondent before this court sought delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in execution case No. 59 of 1991 on the file of the ivth additional city civil judge, Bangalore. The learned judge by his order dated 16th december, 1991, held that the decree passed in original suit No. 1174 of 1983 dated 21-4-1984 sought to be executed in the execution petition is executable. Aggrieved by this order in execution case No. 59 of 1991 the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case very briefly are: the respondent landlord preferred original suit No. 1174 of 1983 on the file of the xi additional city civil judge, Bangalore for delivery of vacant possession of schedule premises and also for arrears of rent. The parties entered into a compromise and according to the said compromise, the suit was decreed. Under the terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the landlord acknowledged taking possession of a portion of the suit premises from the defendant-tenant. The remaining portion of the property which continued to be in possession of the tenant was to be vacated and handed over to the landlord on or before 7-1-1989. The tenant was required to pay damages by way of rent for the use and occupation of the schedule property from 8-1-1984 to 7-1-1986 @ Rs. 800/- p. m. and thereafter till 7-1-1989 @ Rs. 1,000/- p. m. regularly. It was further agreed in the compromise decree that the defendant shall pay damages by way of rent regularly and in case of default to pay the same continuously for a period of two months from the respective due dates, the plaintiff was at liberty to execute the decree and take delivery of the remaining portion of possession of the property. It was further agreed that the defendant shall deliver vacant possession of the remaining portion of the property on or before 7th day of january, 1989 without raising any objections whatsoever. In case defendant failed to hand over vacant possession, the defendant was required to pay damages of Rs. 2,000/- from 8-1-1989 up to date of delivery of the possession of the remaining portion of the property. It was only on these conditions, that the defendant was permitted to stay in the remaining portion of the property. The trial court accepted the compromise and decreed the suit in terms of the compromise.

(3.) UNDER the terms and conditions of the compromise decree, the petitioner-tenant was to deliver vacant possession on or before 7-1-1989 with respect to the remaining portion of the property. Since the petitioner-tenant did not vacate the remaining portion of the property on or before 7-1-1989, the landlord-respondent filed the execution petition No. 135 of 1989. In the execution petition No. 135 of 1989, the tenant expressed his difficulty to vacate the remaining portion of the said property and sought time till 7-1-1991. On such an undertaking the landlord did not press with the execution petition. The executing court in execution petition No. 135 of 1989 held, hence for the time being the execution petition is not pressed in view of the above undertaking, and as such 'the present execution petition was closed'.