ACHUTHAN Vs. A J JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by a tenant in a proceeding under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The matter arises in execution.

(2.) THE landlord filed an application R. C. O. P. 20 of 1976 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. This petition was ended in compromise. THE court passed an order accepting the compromise. It is dated 11-11-1977. THE terms of the compromise are important for deciding the question involved in this revision. So I quote the relevant terms of the compromise order. Even though this compromise order was passed on 11-11-1977, the tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent or paid any future rent. THE landlord filed E. P. No. 8 of 1982 for delivery of the shop room and also for recovery of arrears of rent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents wanted to offset the argument of the counsel for the petitioner by highlighting the general principle that the courts should not insist for their power to execute the decree that a decree or an order should contain explicitly a clause that in default of the terms of the order or decree, there should be a clear direction to enforce the terms of the decree by a particular mode of execution of the decree or order. THE learned counsel cited the following decisions o support of his argument. A. I. R. 1977 Cal. 388, A. I. R. 1978 Cal. 495, I. L. R. (1979)2 Madras 218,1972 (2. RCR 353, A. I. R. 1976 Delhi 181,1978 K. L. T. 495 & A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 2065)