GOPINATHAN NAIR Vs. SANKARAN MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Revision the petitioner judgment debtor challenges the order of the execution court rejecting his claims for benefits under the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 and ordering delivery of possession of the decree schedule property after demolishing the structures therein. The points that arise for consideration in this Civil Rivision are: (1) whether a compromise decree is executable in the absence of any indication in the decree that the judgment debtor is to be evicted after the period he was allowed to continue in possession ; (2) A suit for eviction of a lessee was compromised by giving the lessee some time to vacate on payment of enhanced rent. Will he continue to be a lessee or will he be only a licensee after the decree If only a licensee, can he claim the benefits of S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 ; (3) The judgment debtor filed a suit and obtained an injunction restraining the decree holder from interfering with his possession. Can the court executing the decree ignore the injunction and order delivery of the property in execution and (4) Even if as a result of the compromise decree the lessee ceased to be a lessee and continued thereafter only as a licensee, can he claim the benefits of S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 and escape eviction if he satisfied the conditions insisted by the section which gives fixity to lessees of leases for commercial and industrial purposes In that case, can the execution court order delivery without referring the question to the Land Tribunal for its findings

(2.) The short facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are: The petitioner took on rent about 20 cents of land which belonged to the first respondent for putting up a cinema theatre. On 2nd April, 1962 the petitioner executed a lease deed agreeing to demolish the structures and hand back vacant possession of the land after five years. Alleging that the petitioner did not vacate as per the lease deed, the first respondent filed a suit for eviction and for injunction against repairing the theatre shed. The suit was compromised and, as per the compromise decree, dated 3rd June, 1968, the petitioner was allowed to continue for eight years on condition that he should pay an increased rent of Rs. 40 per month. After the compromise decree, the first respondent assigned the decree to the second respondent. On 2nd June 1980 the respondents filed an execution petition to execute the decree. The petitioner contented that the compromise decree was not capable of execution, that there was renewal of the lease as per the compromise decree, that he was entitled to the protection of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 and that he could not be evicted. The execution court rejected the petitioner's contentions and ordered delivery holding that as per the compromise decree the petitioner continued in the property only as a licensee. The petitioner has challenged the above order of the execution court in this civil revision.

(3.) Before the execution petition was filed, the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents on 17th April, 1980 for declaration of his rights under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 and for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from preventing the petitioner from effecting necessary repairs to the theatre. Then on 19th April, 1980 the respondents filed a suit for a declaration of their title and possession of the property, for a declaration that the petitioner was only a licensee and his licence was terminated in 1979 and also for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from trespassing into the property. In both the suits, applications for temporary injunctions were moved. The Sub Court granted the injunction prayed for by the petitioner and refused the injunction prayed for by the respondents. The respondents challenged the orders before this Court in civil miscellaneous appeals. This Court disposed of the appeals on 29th January 1982 by a common judgment, confirmed the orders of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeals by recording the undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will remove the structures put up by him in the property if he ultimately loses in the suits.