GIRNARI DEVI Vs. GOPAL DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representative of Chhaju Ram landlord, petitioner herein, have filed the present petition against the order dated 13.09.1989, passed by the Learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul, vide which the appeal filed by Gopal Dass, respondent-tenant herein against the order of his eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Rewari, was disposed of in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties according to which the monthly rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 50/- and toward the arrears of rent, it was agreed that the respondent-tenant will pay Rs. 3,400/- to the landlord within a period of one month.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Chhaju Ram landlord filed the ejectment application against the respondent-tenant on 14.2.1986 for his eviction from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent since 1.1.1981. He alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 80/- per month. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondent-tenant he appeared and contested the said ejectment application on the ground that the rate of rent was not Rs. 80/- as alleged by the landlord but it was only Rs. 17/- per month. He also denied that he was in arrears of rent, though he admitted that he was liable to pay rent from 1.12.1985 to 30.4.1986. Accordingly, he tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 17/- per month for the aforesaid period on the first date of hearing. During the pendency of this ejectment application Chhaju Ram landlord expired and his legal representatives who are petitioners herein, were brought on record. After the evidence was led by both the parties the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application and it was held that the monthly rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 80/- per month, therefore, the tender made by the respondent-tenant was short and he was ordered to be ejected and directed to hand over possession of the demised premises to the petitioners.

(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid consent order dated 13.9.1989 the petitioners have filed the present revision petition in this Court on 11.12.1989, alleging therein that neither counsel nor Ravinder Kumar (performa respondent No. 2 herein), was authorised to enter into the comprise on their behalf and the compromise which was recorded on the day when only stay application was fixed cannot be sustained in law. It has also been submitted by the petitioners that Sh. Gian Chand Sharma, Advocate, who appeared as their counsel was having no power of attorney on their behalf. The compromise on the basis of which the matter was disposed of is totally contrary to the interest of all the petitioners, out of whom one was minor at the time of entering into the compromise.