SUDHEER Vs. THAHAKUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the question that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether an Award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 22.07.2011 ordering eviction of the petitioner who is alleged to be the tenant of the premises has become inexecutable in the light of subsequent events as claimed by the petitioner in these petitions.

(2.) The fact that the petitioner was occupying the premises owned by the respondent and he was bound to pay Rs. 90,000/- per month as rent is a matter not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that advance amount was received by the respondent while occupying a portion of the premises. Whatever might have been the relationship between the parties, they chose to approach the Lok Adalat and both of them suffered an Award dated 22.07.2011. By the terms of the Award, the petitioner herein was bound to vacate the building on or before 21.07.2013 and the respondent-landlord was bound to return a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs consisting of Rs. 12 lakhs received as advance and Rs. 8 lakhs spent for furnishing the shop including electrical works. The petitioner was allowed to take his own commodities, racks and furnitures. As per the terms of the Award, as already noticed, the petitioner had to vacate the premises on 21.07.2013. Since he did not do so, the respondent-landlord instituted execution proceedings as per Ext. P2 produced along with the petitions. The tenant resisted the executability of the Award on the ground that subsequent to the passing of the Award, a new and fresh lease arrangement has been entered into between the parties making the Award inexecutable.

(3.) The specific contention taken was that even though the petitioner who is alleged to be the tenant of the premises was prepared to surrender the building as per the Award and had approached the landlord to surrender the premises, the landlord was not in a position to pay Rs. 20 lakhs as stipulated in the Award passed by the Lok Adalat and the landlord requested the tenant to continue the premises for another 11 months paying the same rate of rent. It was therefore contended that the Award has been superseded by the subsequent arrangement and the relationship between the parties i.e. landlord and tenant is governed by the Rent Control Act. The petitioner also gave details of various payments made by him subsequent to the so called fresh arrangement entered into between the parties. Accordingly, it is contended that the landlord cannot execute the Award of the Lok Adalat.