BALAKRISHNA REDDIAR Vs. MADHAVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The executability of a compromise order for eviction passed by a Rent Control Court arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner was the landlord who filed O. P. (B.R.C.) No 238 of 1972, a petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent before the Rent Control Court, Trivandrum. Pending this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner died and additional petitioners 2 to 7 were impleaded. The petition for eviction was first opposed by the counter petitioners tenants, but later, the parties settled the matter and filed a compromise petition incorporating the terms of the compromise. As per the terms, the tenants counter petitioners agreed to surrender possession of the building within one year from 19-12-1973. The tenants will be allowed to continue till that date on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 30/-. The tenants also agreed that the arrears of rent already accrued will be paid within tour months from 19-12-1973. A further term of the compromise was that in case any of the above terms of the compromise is violated, the landlord will have the right to evict them from the building on the expiry of one year from 19-12-1973 in the same proceedings. The Rent Control Court heard the counsel on both sides and passed orders on the petition for eviction in terms of the compromise.

(2.) The tenants paid the arrears of rent as agreed to in the compromise petition, but did not vacate the building after the expiry of one year Thereupon, the landlord filed E. P. No. 55 of 1975 before the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum for getting vacant possession of the building. The tenants raised a contention that the compromise order for eviction is not an executable order. But the contention was rejected by the Rent Control Court and delivery was ordered. Against the above order of the learned Munsiff the second counter petitioner tenant filed a revision before the District Court, Trivandrum as B.R.C. Revision No. 6of 1976 It seems that the first counter petitioner had by that time left this world. The learned District Judge allowed the revision, set aside the order of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the Execution Petition. In Para.8 of the order the learned District Judge has said:

(3.) In Nai Bahu v. Lala Ramnarayan ( AIR 1978 SC 22 ) it is said: