KOLHAPUR MOTOR TRANSPORT PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. RAMCHANDRA MAHIPATRAO RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity and legality of a decree passed on a compromise is the main question that is being posed in this proceeding which had invited a controversy of some allied matters which obviously has expanded the field for adjudication and answer to that question. The suit premises are located on Rajaram Road within the city limits of Kolhapur. The respondents herein are the landlords while the petitioner society was inducted as the tenant in some portion of the building on certain rental basis. The Society fell in arrears from September 1973. An event occurred in between when some portion in possession of the Society was surrended to the landlord with the proportionate scaling down of the rent at Rs. 2,300/- per month. Thereafter also some further portion was surrended by the tenant and the rent was reduced to Rs. 1,600/- per month which finally was further reduced to Rs. 900/- per month as the tenant surrendered additional areas. Since the Society did not pay all the dues, the landlords preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 108 of 1978 in the Civil Court at Kolhapur and the relief restricted only to the recovery of the amount of Rs. 32,155/-, the spilt up being that originally Rs. 61,155/- were due out of which adjustment was made in respect of Rs. 2,900/-.

(2.) Before the petitioner Society could enter in its defence the parties arrived at a settlement on 18th April, 1978 under which the petitioner had agreed to pay the said dues, though instalments were allotted for Rs. 1,000/- per month whereas the last instalment was for Rs. 1,200/-. It is stipulated that in case of any two defaults in the payment of the said amounts, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the full amount out of the asserts and the estate of the society and a further stipulation was added that in that event the plaintiff would also be entitled to get the possession of the premises. It may be reiterated once again that the suit was admittedly not for possession but restricted it still to recovery the amount.

(3.) On the footing of this compromise which was accepted by the parties and which was also accepted by the Court, a decree in all those terms was recorded. The chapter ostensibly was closed but not in reality.