SOBHA MISRA Vs. GURU DAYAL PATSARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rama Goel Bansal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.M. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent. Since both the respondents are represented and the matter has been heard at length the writ petition is being decided finally today itself with the consent of the parties. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Jhansi, in J.S.C.C. No. 32 of 2012 as also the revisional order dated 16.5.2013 passed by the District Judge, Jhansi, in S.C.C. Revision No. 5 of 2013.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an earlier S.C.C. Suit No. 39 of 2010, Guru Dayal v. Smt. Sobha Mishra was decreed on 26.7.2010 on the basis of compromise paper No. 15-C. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the said compromise was obtained by the respondent-landlord from the petitioner under undue influence and misrepresentation since the petitioner was under the impression that under the said compromise the petitioner will have to pay monthly rent @ Rs. 3,000/- and the tenancy would continue. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the application under section 47 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been rejected illegally by the Courts below. The Courts below ought to have considered the objection raised by the petitioner in application under section 47 of the C.P.C. regarding obtaining of the compromise decree by exercising undue influence and misrepresentation. A further submission has been made that the petitioner has been made to suffer due to conduct of the respondent-landlord who has brought criminal proceedings from time to time against the petitioner which shows the mala fide of the respondent-landlord and he ought to have brought regular suit for dispossessing the petitioner which could not be done in execution proceedings in view of the terms of the compromise.

(3.) Sri H.M. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that when S.C.C. Suit was filed the petitioner entered into a compromise with the respondent wherein under the terms of compromise the rent was increased to Rs. 3000/- and a time of one and half year plus 6 months was given to the petitioner to vacate the premises failing which she was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 200 per day for use and occupation beyond that time. According to Sri Srivastava, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also paid by the respondent-landlord to the petitioner under the terms of the compromise. He states that when the time under the compromise expired and the petitioner did not vacate the premises in question the respondent-landlord had no other option but to execute the compromise decree and hence he filed Execution Case No. 12 of 2012 before the Executing Court. According to learned Counsel for the respondent, the compromise stipulated that in the event of violation of terms of compromise the respondent would be entitled to initiate proceedings for her dispossession. He states that when the compromise decree was available to the petitioner he has all legal rights to execute the compromise decree and to say that the respondent-landlord has to file a fresh proceedings for eviction of the petitioner would be incorrect and against the law.