K KUSUMAMBA Vs. CH V SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this C.R.P. has its seed in the womb of the compromise which was entered into between the parties in the earlier round of litigation. It relates to executability of the compromise decree in proceeding initiated by the petitioner under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "the Act')- The petitioner is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant. The landlady filed an application for eviction of the tenant in R.C.C.No.9 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kavali, on two grounds, viz., i) wilful default, and ii) bona-fide requirement for the business of her son. The parties compromised and the learned Principal District Munsif passed decree in terms of compromise on 24-11-1988. Pursuant to the said compromise decree the tenant was to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlady on or before September 30,1991. As the tenant failed to do so, the landlady filed E.P.No.102 of 1991. The tenant raised the objection that the compromise decree of eviction is nullity and the same is not executable. The executing court held that the decree was nullity and not executable and accordingly dismissed the E.P. on January 23,1992. The validity of this order is questioned in this C.R.P.

(2.) Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that having had the advantage of staying in the premises till September 30,1991 and the benefit of withdrawal of the suit, O.S.No.539 of 1987 filed by her for recovery of arrears of rent under the compromise decree, the tenant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by pleading the decree is unexecutable. The learned counsel further submits that the compromise decree is not nullity as having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the background in which the compromise was entered into between the parties it cannot be said that the Rent Controller was not satisfied of the ground of eviction before passing the compromise decree.

(3.) Mr. M.V. Narayana, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the compromise decree is nullity and it cannot be executed and that the learned Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the E.P. He further contends that in the compromise decree neither there is any admission of the tenant with regard to the grounds of eviction nor is there any finding of the Court with regard to the satisfaction of the grounds of eviction, therefore it cannot be said that the order under revision was passed on the satisfaction of the Rent Controller as contemplated by the Act.