KALYANDAS MANILAL SHAH Vs. S M KANKARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the judgement-debtor whose contention that the compromise Decree passed against him for possession was not executable against him on account of various reason, has been negatived by both the courts below. For the reasons which are somewhat peculiar to the case before me I am required to allow this petition by accepting at least one of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner-judgment-debtor.

(2.) The facts of the case which are not in dispute are as follows:-

(3.) At the time of the hearing of this petition it was argued by Shri Kapasi, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the decree was not just executable having regard to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of K. K. Chari V. R. M. Seshadri, and in the other cases of the Supreme Court inasmuch as the Civil court did not have jurisdiction to pass decree against a tenant governed by the Bombay Rent Act merely by compromise of the parties without satisfying itself that the conditions mentioned in Sections 12 and 14 of the Rent Act for a tenant's eviction existed on the date of the suit, or at any other relevant time. He secondly contended that a careful examination of the compromise decree would show that a new contract of tenancy was in fact brought about between the parties with effect from 10-8-1970 of virtue of the settlement arrived at on that date.