LALJI RAMDAS Vs. BHARATHU RAMSWAROOP YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL petitioner was original obstructionist no. 3 in Obstruction Notice No. 146 of 1979 in R. A. E. and R. Suit No. 7066 of 1977. The said suit was filed by the respondent-landlord against his original tenant Gangaram Yadav. The suit was in respect of termination of tenancy in respect of Room No. 4 of the respondent's chawl at Andheri. The said suit was decreed against the original tenant Gangaram on the ground of subletting and arrears of rent on 9th January, 1979. in the summer of 1979 when the warrant of possession was sought to be executed against Gangaram the judgment-debtor, the same was obstructed by the original petitioner and four other members of his family claiming independent rights. It is in these circumstances that the Obstruction Notice No. 146 of 1979 came to be filed before the trial Court. During the pendency of the said obstruction notice, consent terms were filed by the respondent-landlord and the original petitioner-original obstructionist No 5. By the said consent terms the original obstructionist no 5 was recognised as a lawful tenant of Room No 4 while the obstruction notice was to be made absolute against the other four persons. It was also agreed that an amount of Rs. 1,597/- inclusive of all the arrears against the original tenat was to be paid by the original obstructionist No. 5 on or before 24-6-1982.

(2.) AN important clause in the said consent terms in Clause No 6 wherby it was agreed that in the event of default on the part of original obstructionist no. 5 in payment of the agreed amount of Rs. 1,597/-by 24 6-1982, the obstruction aotice against orginal obstructionist No. 5 will also become absolute.

(3.) AFTER the said consent terms however the original obstructionist no. 5 failed to comply with the said term of payment of money by the agreed date. He approached the Court much after the due date of compliance was over sometime in August, 1982 and filed an application that he is aware that in the event he does not pay the amount by due date he was liable to be evicted as an obstructionist under the terms of agreement. He further stated that he is willing to abide by the consent terms and offered to deposit the amount of rs. 997/- which was outstanding against him.