RAMDAYAL GULABACHAND KHANDELWAL Vs. MAHENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/ landlords have challenged the concurrent judgments delivered by the courts below holding that because of the compromise entered into by their father with the father of respondents and a consequential decree, a tenancy was created. As the said tenancy was governed by the provisions of C.P and Berar Premises, Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "Rent Control Order"), the landlords/petitioners could not have executed the said compromise decree.

(2.) The facts in brief are that, the predecessor of present petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 134/1967 against one Badrinarayan Khandelwal, father of the present respondents. The suit was for his ejectment and for possession on the basis of title. It was contended that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendant vide sale deed dated 17.1.1959. Part of the said property was given to the defendant Badrinarayan for occupation as licensee of the plaintiffs and he agreed to vacate it when ever demanded by the plaintiffs. It was stated that agreement of licence was oral and made on 'Gudipadwa' day i.e. on 9.4.1959. It was complained that since past 2-3 years, Badrinarayan was picking up false quarrels and relations between the parties therefore deteriorated. The plaintiffs therefore demanded vacant possession by terminating his licence. The prayer in the suit was thus for delivering vacant possession. The suit was opposed by Badrinarayan who in written statement contended that the sale deed was nominal one and was not supposed to be acted upon. He pointed out that there was a partnership and in order to save the property from claims of other partners, the arrangement was accordingly evolved and on 17.1.1959 a nominal sale deed was executed in the name of plaintiff No. 1 by Badrinarayan. It appears that after filing of this written statement on 14.2.1968, the matter proceeded further and ultimately on 12.9.1972 a compromise was entered into between the parties. As per the terms of the said compromise, defendant Badrinarayan withdrew his contentions about nature of transaction between the parties and mentioned that he claimed no title thereto. By Clause 4 of the compromise, he was given 15 years right to stay i.e. period from Diwali of 1972 ending with Diwali of 1987 and for each year, which was to be counted from Diwali to Diwali, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 900/- inclusive of all taxes. The said clause further contemplated that "in case of default inpayment of rent of any three years" the plaintiffs would be entitled to claim immediate possession of all portions. Little later, in the said Clause-4, it is observed that "if rent falls into arrears such an amount shall carry interest at Re. 1 /-per month till payment." Clause 6 stated that at Diwali, 1987 when the defendant was supposed to vacate the premises, he would deliver possession of all premises including any additional permanent structure raised by him on the site. Other terms of this document are being looked into little later herein. As after expiry of the said period the possession was not handed over, plaintiffs/ decree holders filed execution against the legal heirs of defendants/judgment debtors Badrinarayan. The execution appears to have been filed on 1.1.1988. The judgment debtors/present respondents, opposed the execution and claimed that as the compromise had the effect of creating a tenancy, the execution was not maintainable.

(3.) In this background I have heard Advocate Shri R. Deo, for petitioners. No body has appeared for respondents.