PUSHPABAI Vs. CHANDRAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of M.P. No. 987/90 (Chandra Kant and another v, Smt. Pushpabai and others) preferred against the part of the same order. The petition M.P. No 1176/89 is filed by the decree -holder whereas the petition M.P. No.987/90 is filed by those, who were not parties to the main suit culminating in eviction decree, but intervened in the execution proceeding in an effort to anaesthetize the judicial command. The executing Court, sitting on the horns of dilemma, over ruled the objection of interveners, but directed enquiry into the alleged compromise as whispered in M.P. No. 955/88 on 31.8.88. This is how the decree -holder (M.P. No.1176/89) and interveners, brothers of Decree -holder (M.P.No.987/90) have come up before us under the protective umbrella of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Promise of vacation by 30.3.87, c1imaxed.as decree, suffering eclipse and hibernation and proceedings, turning out to be elusory on the linchpin of pretexts and pettigoggery, had the tortured and tortive turn with the insignia of "Eile Mit Weila".

(2.) FACTUAL matrix is obviously jejune. The facts leading to the present petitions are that the petitioner of M.P. No. 1176/89 in the capacity of owner landlord, filed the suit registered as C.O.S. No. 40 -A/86 in the Court of Civil Judge Class II Indore for eviction from non -residential accommodation, bearing House No. 611 (Old No. 422) situate in Khajuri Bazar on M.G. Road, Indore, against her tenant Kailash Chandra (respondent No.4). The tenancy was evidenced by rent receipts and the rent was only Rs. 20/ - per month. The ground of eviction was the bona fide need of major son Manoj Kumar for starting business. On 21.10.86, the tenant agreed to vacate by 30.3.87 and suffered a consent decree on 28.10.86.

(3.) ON the date of filing the civil suit No. 446 -A/87, respondents No.1 to 3 had also filed an application labelling it as under O.21, R.97 and section 151 CPC in the executing Court on 1.5.87. The respondent No.3, alleged to be mentally infirm, through his next friend Madanlal, filed an application on 8.9.88 in the Execution case. The respondent No.1 submitted an application on 13.9.88 under O.21, R. 2 and section 47 CPC, contending that the decree had stood fully satisfied in terms of the compromise as mentioned in M.P. No. 955/88 and optatively prayed for an enquiry into the factum and terms of compromise (Annexure XVII). This was assailed as untenable (Annexure XVIII).