LAJWANTI Vs. DAGDULAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner the order passed by the Civil Judge (Class II) Harsud, in Execution Case No. 58-A/75, dated 6.4.81 ejecting an objection field by the petitioner and others who were the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondent No. I filed a suit for eviction against Sitaram, father of the petitioner, and respondents 2 to 7 on the ground that the tenant, i.e. deceased Sitaran, had agreed in addition to payment of rent of Rs. 13.00 p.m. also to pay taxes that would be chargeable on the property. Another ground urged in the suit was that the deceased Sitaram had built a house of his own and his family had shifted therein. Although in the written statement filed by the deceased Sitaram, both these allegations made by the respondent No. 1 were disputed, yet it appears from the order sheet in the Court below dated 21.3.1979 that the deceased Sitaram had filed an application for amendment of the written statement by which he admitted that he had built a house of his own, although it was also stated that his brother, who was a surety when the loan was taken for the construction of the house, had created some dispute which is pending, but it was clearly alleged that the house belonged to the deceased defendant.

(3.) It appears from the order sheet dated 21.2.1979 that immediately after the amendment was effected, on the same date, an application for compromise was filed and the learned trial Court, after recording the compromise and holding that it was a compromise in accordance with law passed a decree in terms of the compromise. The decree provided that the house shall be vacated on or before 15.11.1980 and it appears that as the house was not vacated, the respondent No. 1 filed the present execution petition, in which an objection was raised by the petitioner and other L.R.S. of the deceased that as the decree did not show that it was on any one of the grounds mentioned in Section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, it was not executable. This objection was overruled by the Court below and, therefore, the present revision petition has been filed.