V. RAMASWAMI Vs. ANANCHAMUTHU AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of Gokulakrishnan, J. and arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, instituted a suit against the respondent -defendant for recovery of possession of the suit leasehold and of arrears of rent due from the respondent. The respondent raised a number of objections, but ultimately, the suit was compromised by the parties and a decree was granted in terms thereof. According to the compromise filed by the parties, the arrears of rent due by the defendant -tenant was fixed at a particular figure, and he was directed to pay the same within a prescribed period. The compromise further provided that the tenant might be in enjoyment of the leasehold till (kumbam crop), and after harvesting the kumbam crop appropriating the produce thereof and after receiving from the landlords (plaintiffs) the sum of Rs. 350 which the tenant had paid him as advance, the tenant should vacate the leasehold. There was another clause in the compromise which provided that in case the defendant -tenant failed to comply with the terms of the compromise, it was open to the plaintiffs to deposit into Court the advance of Rs. 350 due to the defendant and obtain delivery of possession of the leasehold through Court This decree was granted on 9 -1 -1959. On 11 -3 -1963, that is to say, after the period prescribed in the compromise was over, the plaintiff filed E. P. 191 of 1963 in the Court of the District Munsif, Nagarcoil, for delivery of possession of the leasehold in execution of the compromise decree.

(2.) THE execution was resisted by the judgment -debtor on the ground that he was protected from eviction under the provisions of the Holdings (Stay of Execution Proceedings) Act, 1950 (Travancore -Cochin Act VIII of 1950) and that he should not be evicted unless he committed any wilful default in the payment of rent or any wilful act, of waste. The decree -holder, on the other hand, contended that the judgment debtor, was not entitled to the benefit of the Travancore Cochin Act VIII of 1950 because he had waived his rights thereunder by entering into the compromise.

(3.) THE main question that arises for consideration is, whether in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Travancore -Cochin Act VIII of 1950 and the admissions contained in the compromise decree, the Court should desist from executing the compromise decree and from ordering delivery of possession of the property in favour of the decree -holder. The preamble to the Travancore Cochin Act VIII of 1950 runs as follows :