SMT. KAMLESH RANI AND ORS. WIDOW OF LATE SRI OM PRAKASH AND ORS. Vs. SRI VISHWAMITRA AGARWAL SRI VISHWAMITRA AGARWAL (SINCE DECEASED) S/O SRI MUSDDI LAL (SMT. DAYAWATI AGARWAL WIDOW OF LATE SHRI VISHWAMITRA AND ORS.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1993, passed by first appellate court (Civil Judge, Roorkee), in civil appeal No. 16 of 1984, whereby said court, has set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1984, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Roorkee) in suit No. 127 of 1973, and decreed the suit, filed by the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the lower court record. This Second Appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law, after it is received from Allahabad High Court, where it was filed in the year 1993:

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that defendant/appellants are the owners and the landlord of the property in suit, situated at Chowk Bazar, Roorkee. In said house earlier plaintiff -Vishwamitra Agarwal, was the tenant. It appears that the landlord -Om Prakash, instituted suit in the year 1959, for eviction of the present plaintiff from the property in suit by filing suits No. 269 of 1959 and 270 of 1959. Said suits were decreed in terms of compromise dated 12.03.1962, and the present plaintiff agreed to vacate the house in question on the condition that whenever owner/landlord constructs a room on the roof of the house, the same shall be let out to the present plaintiff on rent, fixed by present defendant No. 2 Jagmohan Lal. In the year 1972, owner/landlord (present defendant/appellant) appears to have constructed the new room. The present plaintiff instituted suit on 05.03.1973, for specific performance of compromise contract between the parties, mentioned above. Present defendant/appellant contested the suit, before the trial court and pleaded that no rent was got fixed by the present plaintiff, as such, since the terms of the compromise agreement were not fulfilled, the present plaintiff cannot get the decree of specific performance of contract. The defendant/appellant also took other pleas in the written statement.