HARPAL SINGH Vs. SURINDER MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 16.10.2004 passed by the learned trial Court declining the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure or in the alternative for referring the matter to the arbitrator in view of the agreement dated 24.06.2001.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for possession after termination of tenancy of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent on 8.4.2002. It was the case of the plaintiff that though the defendant was inducted as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month but in the earlier suit for injunction filed by the defendant, he alleged rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. On the basis of said stand, the plaintiff served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed a suit for ejectment. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court but, in appeal, his brother Naresh Kumar entered into compromise with the defendant and by virtue of a compromise deed dated 24.06.2001, fresh tenancy was created at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 2.1.2002. The plaintiff further pleaded that he needs the house urgently and, therefore, without entering into the controversy regarding validity of the agreement, he has terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide notice dated 24.06.2002 and, thus, claimed arrears of rent/damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month from 1.8.2001 to 30.4.2002 and future damages at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month from 1.5.2002 till the delivery of possession.

(3.) IT may be stated that the compromise Exhibit C-1 produced in the Court is on a stamp paper witnessed by Amarjit Singh and Sukhminder Singh. However, the agreement is on a plain paper witnessed by one Kamaldeep Singh and (illegible) s/o Baktawar Singh.