VASANT KELKAR Vs. P AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the landlord/plaintiff/appellant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.8.1993 passed by the District Court directing remand of a suit for retrial in supersession of the order of the trial Court which had directed the suit to be dismissed.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this petition may briefly be noticed. Undisputedly, the plaintiff/petitioner is the owner of the suit accommodation, non-residential in nature, where the non-petitioner is a tenant. The suit seeking ejectment of the tenant of the ground available under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Jabalpur on 14.9.1987. The trial proceeded. At the stage of evidence on 12.8.1991, an application was filed wherein no provision of law is mentioned. It purports to be signed by both the parties. Therein it was prayed that the matter was amicably settled between the parties on 6.8.1991 and hence the suit may be dismissed. Though a copy of deed of private compromise dated 6.8.1991 drawn up on stamp paper worth Rs. 10/- was filed along with the application, it is clear that neither recording of the compromise was prayed for nor did any of the parties pray for any decree being passed in terms of the said private compromise dated 6.8.1991. As stated, the only prayer made was the Court be pleased to dismiss the suit.

(3.) THE trial Court proceeded to make an enquiry treating the application dated 12.8.1991 as one filed under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. Having arrived at a finding that the compromise had taken place, the trial Court directed the suit to be dismissed as compromised. As against the decree of the trial Court the defendant preferred a regular appeal. The lower appellate Court formed an opinion that the suit was governed by section 12 of the Accommodation Control Act and inasmuch as availability of ground for ejectment within the meaning of any of the clauses of section 12 (1) was not recorded therein, the compromise was illegal and there was no question of any decree being passed in terms thereof. The District Court allowed the appeal and remanded the suit to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.