S RAMACHANDRAN Vs. PARASAKTHI GANESH RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.372 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent/ plaintiff filed the above suit for injunction that he should not be evicted except under due process of law and Electricity connection should not be disconnected. In the plaint, the respondent/ plaintiff admitted that he is a tenant under the revision petitioner. A compromise was entered into between the parties and a memo of compromise was filed in that suit and the same was recorded and as per the prayer made in the memorandum of compromise and as agreed between the parties, the Court below passed a decree as per the compromise memo. As per the memorandum of compromise, the respondent herein agreed to vacate the premises on or before 31.5.2008 and the revision petitioner herein also agreed not to take any action against the respondent/ plaintiff to evict him from the suit schedule premises. As the respondent/ plaintiff failed to vacate as per the memorandum of compromise, the revision petitioner filed Execution Petition before the Court below and the Court below refused to number the Execution Petition and therefore the revision petitioner herein filed C.R.P.(NPD)No.4214 of 2008 before this Court seeking for direction directing the Court below to number the Execution Petition and that was ordered on 20.1.2009 and thereafter the Execution Petition was numbered as E.P.No.2 of 2011 and in that Execution Petition the respondent herein filed E.A.No.35 of 2009 under Section 47 of CPC., stating that the decree is inexecutable and admittedly he is a tenant of the property and he can be evicted only by resorting to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and without filing an application before the Rent Controller he cannot be evicted. That application was allowed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

(3.) I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent and in my view, the Court below without properly appreciating the Judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent. It is true that a tenant is entitled to the benefits of the Rent Control Act and he cannot be evicted except under due process of law. But it does not mean that the tenant cannot be evicted pursuant to the compromise entered into by the tenant with the landlord wherein he agreed to vacate the property on or before a particular date. In this case, admittedly, the suit was filed by the respondent/ tenant for injunction that he should not be vacated except under due process law and that suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties and as per the terms of compromise, the respondent/ plaintiff agreed to vacate the premises on or before 31.5.2008 and the revision petitioner also agreed not to take any action against the respondent/ plaintiff for eviction in view of the undertaking given by the tenant. The trial Court also passed the decree on the basis of the compromise. It is seen from the decree that the suit was decreed in terms of compromise and the memorandum of compromise forms part of the decree and the terms of compromise is also incorporated in the decree and it is stated as follows: