SHYAMLAL Vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous second appeal is at the instance of the judgment -debtor whose objection to the executability of the decree has been rejected by the Courts below.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent -decree -holder, being the landlord of the appellant, brought a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. Ultimately, the parties entered into a compromise on the following terms : -

(3.) AS regards the second objection, it would suffice to observe that the Courts below were rightly satisfied on consideration of the terms of compromise in the context of the pleadings and other material on record that the agreement to suffer a decree for eviction was lawful inasmuch as the ground as specified in section 12 (1) (a) of the Act, i.e. default in payment of arrears of rent was available. The facts that the defendant was in arrears of rent and did not pay the same within two mouths from the date of service of the notice of demand and has also not deposited the same after the institution of the suit in compliance with the provisions of section 13 (1) of the Act, were apparent on the face of record. It is true that there is no formal mention of any ground as contemplated by section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in the compromise decree. But this in itself will not vitiate the same because there was sufficient material in the back ground of the case to satisfy the Court that the ground under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act was available to the plaintiff. Reliance has been rightly placed on the observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Roshanlal and another v. Madanplal and others 1976 JLJ 1 = AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2130