RAIS KHAN Vs. RAM KISHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was a tenant in the shop in dispute situated in House No. 17/87 Sevka Bazar, District-Agra on monthly rent of Rs. 21.75/-. In Misc. Rent Control Appeal No. 105 of 2006, order dated 6.10.2006 was passed by the Prescribed Authority for eviction of the petitioner. Another appeal No. 16 of 2009 was also filed by another tenant which is said to be still pending against the same order of eviction. It appears that the respondent-landlord prepared and filed a compromise deed for enhancement of rent from Rs. 21.87 to Rs. 700/- till the shop is vacated by the petitioner. It was admittedly signed by the petitioner. The Court, therefore, decided the appeal in terms of compromise-Consequently, the landlord/respondent filed an application under section 21(A) of Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop by the petitioner in terms of compromise deed. On receipt of notice in Misc. Case No. 24 of 2008, the aforesaid case was registered as Misc. Case No. 24 of 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application in the aforesaid misc. case on the ground that for the first time he has come to know about the terms of compromise and as such the order dated 23.8.2007 deciding appeal in terms of compromise may be recalled. The Addl. District Judge, Court No. 6, Agra by order dated 1.11.2010 rejected the recall application moved by the petitioner which has given cause for filing the present writ petition. It is admitted fact that the petitioner had signed on the compromise deed. He had also appeared before the Court, therefore, contention of the petitioner that he did not know about the terms of compromise deed is not tenable. When a document is filed before a Court, it is to be presumed that the same has been read by the parties and their Counsel and Court must have satisfied itself before passing of the order, in case it was in accordance with law, the party aggrieved ought to have filed objections, but it is not so in this case.

(2.) In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the reason given by the petitioner for recall of order dated 23.8.2007 deciding appeal in terms of compromise is an after thought and the Court below has rightly rejected the recall application in terms of which appeal was decided.

(3.) For all the reasons stated above, the Court is not inclined to interfere in this case. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.