LAWS(APH)-1986-9-23

NEW MAIRAJ CAFE Vs. RAMAKARAN

Decided On September 19, 1986
NEW MAIRAJ CAFE PER ITS PARTNERS Appellant
V/S
RAMAKARAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition at the instance of the judgment-debtor is against the order holding that the decree is executable and the proceedings for eviction pursuant to the decree by the civil court are maintainable.

(2.) The facts culminating in this revision petition may be briefly stated : The suit is filed for ejectment of the petitioners herein from the suit Malgies and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ultimately the matter is compromised and pursuant thereto a compromise decree was passed on 25-4-1981. The compromise decree provided for three years time for vacating the permises and for payment of arrears of rent. The time for vacating the premises expired by 31-3-1982. The execution of the compromise decree is resisted on the ground that the Supreme Court struck down Sec. 32 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act declaring it is unconstitutional and as such the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as possession has not been delivered pursuant to the compromise decree. The court below held that the decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the situation in the present case as the decree is passed in terms of compromise and having consented to vacate the premises pursuant to the compromise decree, the judgment-debtor cannot resist the execution proceedings.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is absolutely no distinction between a compromise decree and a decree on adjudication and therefore the decision of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the instant case and as such execution proceedings are not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondents seeking to sustain the order of the court below the contendent that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant as between the decree-holders and the petitioners-defendents herein and as such the question of claiming protection of Rent Control Act by the petitioners herein does not arises and the decision of the Supreme Court be pressed into service.