EMMANUEL Vs. DAMODARAN ACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the pendency of a rent control proceeding for an order of eviction, the landlord and the tenant entered into a compromise. Pursuant to a petition filed by both parties an order was passed by the Rent Control Court. The tenant surrendered the possession of the building to the landlord in compliance with the terms of the compromise. But the landlord is not willing to perform his part of the compromise, though he secured the advantage of getting vacant possession of the building. The Rent Control Court, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority did not help him in his attempt to squirm out of his liability. Hence the landlord has now approached this Court with a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are these: The landlord filed a petition before the Rent Control Court for a direction to put him in possession of the tenanted premises, on two grounds, that the tenant committed default in payment of rent and that the building needs reconstruction. The tenant contested the petition initially, but later both of them entered into a compromise and a compromise petition was filed before the Rent Control Court. As per the terms of the compromise, the tenant agreed to vacate from the building since he was convinced about the precarious condition of the building. On the part of the landlord, he agreed to complete reconstruction of the new building within six months from the date of getting possession of the building. He further agreed to put the tenant in possession of the southern room of the new building, on fair rent. Provision is made in the agreement for fixation of the rate of fair rent. The Rent Control Court, on the compromise petition being filed, passed an order which reads thus: "Parties have come to terms and tiled a compromise; the compromise is recorded; the petition is hence decreed in terms of the compromise". Subsequently, the tenant surrendered possession of the building to the landlord. A new building has been constructed in the same site. But the tenant was not inducted into possession of a room in the new building. Hence he initiated frantic steps to get the room allotted to him. His earlier efforts, to enforce the clause in the compromise, through the execution court did not fructify. His later efforts through Rent Control Court registered some success, but the Appellate Authority directed the Rent Control Court to fix the fair rent first and then to put the tenant in the room of the building. So he filed a petition in the Rent Control Court praying for determination of fair rent of the building. The landlord resisted the petition by advancing all possible contentions, including the contention that the order passed on the compromise is a nullity. All such contentions were spurned down and the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent of the room at the rate of Rs. 115/- per month. The landlord then filed an appeal, but the Appellate Authority dismissed the same. His revision was also dismissed by the District Court. Hence he has approached this Court now.

(3.) Obviously the tenant paid a heavy penalty for believing this landlord when signing the compromise document. The tenant has graciously performed his part of the agreement by surrendering possession of the building without any demur, in accordance with the terms of the compromise. The landlord who got the benefit of the compromise, has acted unfairly in denying the tenant the fruit of his endeavour which culminated in the compromise. Had the tenant any inkling of the meandering designs of the landlord, I am sure, the tenant would never have capitulated to the terms of the compromise. The fun of it is, that the landlord has the impudence to say that determination of fair rent of the building has resulted in "miscarriage of justice." Perhaps his notion of justice is different from what others think about. The only contention now raised is that the tenant is not entitled to enforce the terms of the compromise as the order based on compromise is a nullity.