LAWS(GJH)-2023-10-67

LAXMINARAYAN KHADAYAT VANIK TRUST Vs. RUPESHBHAI TRIBHOVANBHAI SOLANKI

Decided On October 10, 2023
Laxminarayan Khadayat Vanik Trust Appellant
V/S
Rupeshbhai Tribhovanbhai Solanki Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dtd. 29/8/2018, passed below Exh.35 in Execution Petition No.327 of 2014, by which the Executing Court, in order to execute the decree of possession, issued possession warrant as prayed by the decree holder-respondent herein.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present petition are that, the petitioner Laxminarayan Khadayat Vanik Trust, being a community trust, possessed immovable property at City: Vadodara, Gujarat. In the property admeasuring 6000 square feet, the trust had constructed shops and offices on the said property. The respondentRupesh Solanki being a tenant was in possession of two shops namely no.5 and 6 at the ground floor of the property and since 2000, he was enjoying the tenancy rights in relation to the two shops. The respondent-plaintiff filed Rent Suit No.6 of 2013 and sought a relief of permanent injunction and declaration joining the petitioner-trust and its two trustees who are in management of the trust. In the suit, it was apprehended by the plaintiff that, the trust wants to sell the suit premises and to evict him from the property, some unknown persons came to his shop and threatened him to vacate the shops and handover the possession. Thus, therefore, to protect the tenancy rights and the possession, the suit restraining the petitioners-defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of tenancy rights, was being filed before the Small Causes Court at Vadodara. After service of summons upon the petitioners-defendants, a compromise arrived between the parties and it was recorded in writing on 14/2/2013 duly signed by both the parties. In the compromise at Exh.9, the following terms were agreed by the parties:

(3.) In the presence of the parties, the trial Court, had disposed of the suit recording the compromise by passing the following order below Exh.1: Order below Exh.1 (Rent Suit No.6 of 2013):