LAXMAN PRASAD UMRAIYA Vs. BALWANT SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor/applicant as well as the learned counsel representing the decree-holder/respondent and carefully perused the record.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the order passed by the executing Court rejecting his objections filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, the judgment-debtor/tenant, the present applicant, challenging the executability of the decree for his eviction from the premises in dispute, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the aforesaid order and for declaring the decree passed by the Civil Court to be a nullity and inexecutable and further praying for rejecting the application for execution of the decree.

(3.) THE facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass : The decree passed in the suit giving rise to the execution in question had been filed on the ground of default envisaged under Section 12 (1) (a), nuisance envisaged under Section 12 (1) (c) and personal need envisaged under Section 12 (1) (f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. During the pendency of the suit, the tenant, the present applicant, moved an application on 28-1-1985 bringing to the notice of the Court that the dispute had been settled between the parties. It was admitted by the tenant that Vinod Kumar and Ganga Prasad, the transferees pendente lite, were the owners of the premises in dispute. The present applicant in an unequivocal terms made a clear statement in his application that he did not want to continue as tenant in the premises in dispute and will hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiffs on or before 31-7-1985. In case the possession was not handed over to the plaintiffs by 31-7-1985, it will be open to the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 to get the decree executed and recover possession thereof. On the aforesaid application, the plaintiff made an endorsement that he was agreeable to the same. The aforesaid compromise was duly verified by the Court and a decree was passed in terms thereof. The tenant/judgment-debtor sought to challenge the aforesaid compromise on various grounds but failed in his efforts and the compromise entered into between the parties was found to be valid and in accordance with the law being not vitiated in any manner.