T M A ABDUL HAMEED Vs. S RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is an illustration as to how a litigant can thwart an order passed by this Court on the basis of a compromise to which he was a party. GENESIS

(2.) THE applicant herein is admittedly the owner of the premises No.12, Mooker Nallamuthu Street, Madras -1. THE respondent was a tenant of the western shop in the said building under the applicant. THE applicant filed H.R.C. No.744 of 1976 under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground of requirement for additional accommodation. THE applicant was residing in a portion of the aforesaid premises. THE respondent raised an objection that the application was not maintainable under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act as he sought additional accommodation for the purpose of his business. THE Rent Controller overruled the objections raised by the respondent and ordered eviction. On appeal by the respondent, the Appellate Authority while upholding the bona fides of the requirement of the applicant, allowed the appeal on a technical ground that the application should have been filed by the applicant under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and not under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act. THEreafter, the applicant filed H.R.C.No.308 of 1980 under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. THE respondent contested the same on the ground that it was barred by res judicata in view of the dismissal of the earlier proceeding for eviction. THE contention raised by the respondent was considered " as a preliminary objection and by order dated 15.7.1980, the Rent Controller held that the proceeding was not barred by res judicata. He directed that the main petition would be taken up for disposal on 19,7,1980. THE respondent filed H.R.A No.1231 of 1980 on the file of the VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, against the order of the Rent Controller. THE Appellate Authority concurred with the view taken by the Rent Controller. THE Appellate Authority concurred with the view taken by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal by an order dt. 20.6.1981. THEreafter, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 30.4.1984 after a severe contest by the respondent. One of the main contentions raised by the respondent was that the applicant had already obtained vacant possession of the eastern shop and he was keeping the same under lock and key with a view to let it out to some other party for a higher rent. That contention was negatived by the Rent Controller, who accepted the case of the applicant that the eastern shop was used as a godown by "Hardware Traders", a partnership firm in which he was one of the partners and that it was not vacant. THE order of eviction was challenged by the respondent by an appeal in R.C.A. No.874 of 1984. THE Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction by his order dated 29.8.1985. Against the said order, the respondent preferred a revision to this Court which was taken on file as C.R.P. No.3948 of 1985.

(3.) WHEN the Memo of compromise was filed in Court, Sathar Sayeed, J, passed the following Order on 28.1.1986: Ã ¯ ¿ 1/2The tenant, having lost in both the authorities below, has filed the above Civil Revision before this Court. 2. After some arguments, the respective counsel appearing for the parties decided that the matter has to be compromised. Accordingly, a memo of compromise is filed before me today duly signed by the respective parties and their respective counsel. The said memo of compromise will form part of this order. In view of the memo of compromise filed by the parties, there will be a decree in terms of the memo of compromise. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.Ã ¯ ¿ 1/2 The decretal order passed by this Courts was as follows: Ã ¯ ¿ 1/2This petition coming on for hearing on Wednesday the 23rd day of July, 1986 and this day in the presence of Mr.V.Subramaniam, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.A.J.Abdul Razak.Advocate for the respondent having entered into a compromise between themselves and through their Advocates and having filed a memorandum of comporomise requesting the Courts to pass an order in terms of the said memo of compromise duly signed by the parties as well as by their respective counsel upon perusing the petition, the order of the lower Courts and the records in the case and the said memorandum of compromise, the original of which is annexed herewith and the petitioner -tenant undertaking to vacate the premises No.12 (old No.23) Mooker Nalla -muthu Street, Madras -1 (Western side portion) in the ground floor on or before 31.7.1987, this Courts doth record the said memo of compromise and both in terms thereof order as follows: 1. That the petitioner - tenant does have time till 31.7.1987 to vacate the said premises. 2. That the petitioner -tenant shall continue to pay the rent of Rs.600 (Rupees six hundred only) per month regularly till 31.7.87 without any default 3. That the Petitioner -tenant shall not cause damage to the building, and not sublet the building and 4. That there be no costs in this petition.Ã ¯ ¿ 1/2