MASHHOOR ALAM Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4-9-1995, passed by respondent No. 1, rejecting the objection of the petitioner filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the order dated 16-9-1995, passed by respondent No. 1, dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondent No. 3 is landlord of the premises in dispute. He filed suit No. 57 of 1985 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 100 per month, He failed to pay rent since 1-10- 1980. Respon dent No. 3 sent a notice dated 30-11-1983/1-12-1983, demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the petitioner. THE notices was served upon the petitioner on 6-12-1983. THE petitioner gave a reply to the said notice. THE petitioner filed written statement on 28-11-1985. It was stated by him that the shop in question was taken on rent in the year 1965 at the rate of Rs. 20 per month. It was enhanced to Rs. 25 per month in the year 1972. He paid the rent to the landlord- respondent for the period till 4-12-1983 but the landlord did not issue any rent receipt. For the period 5- 12-1983 to 4-12-1985, it was alleged that he was going to deposit in Court. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner and respondent No. 2 entered into compromise. THEy filed compromise application dated 17-7-1986 before the Civil Judge exercising the power of Judge, Small Causes Court, Mathura. THE terms of the compromise were as follows : (1) THE suit for ejectment be decreed but the plaintiff shall not execute the decree for a period of two years and in case the defendant does not vacate the disputed shop, it will be open to the plaintiff to obtain the possession through execution of the decree. (2) THE plaintiff shall pay Rs. 8,000 to the tenant as the defendant had affixed certain furniture in the shop in question, the cost of which is Rs. 8,000. THE amount shall be payable. at the time the possession is taken by the landlord. (3) THE suit for recovery of arrears of rent shall be dismissed regarding recovery of rent and damages. (4) THE defendant shall pay damages at the rate of Rs. 25 per month for the period of two years during which he continued in occupation of the shop in ques tion. This compromise was signed by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and their counsel. It was verified by the court. THE suit was decreed in terms of the compromise on 17-7-1986.

(3.) THE second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable and the suit could not have been decreed unless the trial Court was satisfied that the grounds for eviction exist as enumerated under sub-section (2) Of Section 20 of the Act. THE court passed the decree in terms of the compromise without recording any satisfaction that any ground exists for decreeing the suit as enumerated under Section 20 (2) of the Act and unless the court was satisfied of the existence of any such ground, the decree passed in terms of the compromise was a nullity.