ANAND PARKASH Vs. BHAGWAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from a chobara (first floor) on two grounds, namely (1) that the tenant was in arrears of rent and (ii) that there was change of user of the premises and both these grounds find mention in Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The tenant disputed both the grounds and pleaded that there was no change of user. As regards the ground of non-payment of rent, his case was that by one tenancy he had taken a shop and the chobara on rent, initially at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month which was increased to Rs. 165/- p.m. in the year 1975. As against this, the case of the landlord was that the shop alone was let out initially at the rate of Rs. 165/- per month and the chobara was separately let out at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month. The landlord had claimed arrears with respect to the chobara. According to him the tenant was in arrears for more than three years but since he could claim arrears only for three years, therefore, he specified that a sum of Rs. 3,240/- was due towards arrears of rent besides interest and costs. A sum of Rs. 990/- towards arrears of rent, besides interest and costs, was tendered by the tenant in Court within the prescribed period of 15 days which tender was not accepted by the landlord to be valid. The Rent Controller, after going into merits found that the tenancy of the shop of the chobara was joint at the rate of Rs. 165/- per month and accepted the arrears of rent paid by the tenant to be correct and on that basis held that tender as valid. He also found that the landlord had failed to prove the change of user. In the result, the ejectment petition was dismissed.

(2.) From the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord took the matter in appeal. The landlord urged both the points for ejectment. Before the appeal could be finally decided on merits, the parties arrived at a compromise in writing duly signed by the parties and their counsel, which was as follows :-

(3.) In pursuance of the compromise order the landlord tendered Rs. 6,000/- within the prescribed time but the tenant declined to receive the same as is clear from the order of appellate authority dated 31st August, 1981. The tenant was to vacate the premises till 31st August, 1981. On or before 31st August, 1981, the tenant filed an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code before the appellate authority before whom the compromise was arrived at to the effect that the compromise should not be looked into and the appeal be decided on merits. This application was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 31st August, 1981, after coming to the conclusion that the matter had been compromised which was duly signed by the tenant and his counsel and since the landlord had tendered the sum of Rs. 6,000/- on the basis of the compromise, he was entitled to obtain possession thereof and that the matter could not be reopened as urged by the tenant. Against the aforesaid order, the tenant has come to this Court in revision.