MST. PARBATI Vs. JAGMANDAR DASS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949 which has been referred to a larger Bench by my learned brother Dulat J. in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE Petitioner Shrimati Parbati instituted a suit against Jagmandar Dass Respondent about a year ago under Section 13(3)(iii) of the Act for his ejectment from the premises in suit which consist of a shop on the ground that the premises were required for reconstruction. On the 20th of July, 1960, the parties made a joint statement which amounted to a compromise by which the tenant agreed that on the day on which an adjacent shop was vacated by another tenant he would vacate the shop in dispute and hand over possession to the landlord, and the landlord agreed to reconstruct the building within six months and restore possession of the rebuilt shop to the tenant. It further provided that if the landlord did not rebuild the shop within the prescribed period she would be liable to pay Rs. 200 as damages to the tenant and would in any case be bound to lease the shop to him when it was rebuilt. A decree on the basis of this compromise was passed the same day by the Rent Controller.

(3.) THE reason for these doubts regarding the enforceability of the compromise arrived at between the parties appears to have been the decision of J.L. Kapur, J., in Nathu Ram v. Pandit Ram Partap, 53 P.L.R. 90, which the same learned Judge followed in a later case Nanki Devi v. Ram Kishan Das : A.I.R. 1953 P&H 51.