SOM DUTT Vs. VILAYATI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case have a sorry tale to tell. Som Dutt was a tenant of a residential house under Vilayati Ram and his wife, situated in the town of Gohana. While he was in possession of the same as tenant, he got apprehension that the landlords would use force to evict him and would demolish the house. The tenant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction for restraining the landlords from interfering with his possession of the house as a tenant. In that suit, a written compromise, duly signed by the parties, dated 13th November, 1984 was placed on the record. The salient features of the written compromise were that the tenant was to remain tenant of a room and a Deodi, the landlord was to construct a latrine and a bath room which were to be jointly sued by the parties, a kitchen was to be constructed by the landlords for the tenant, rent of the premises was to be Rs. 100/- per month and in case the premises would need repairs, the tenant would vacate the same and after repairs the premises would be handed back to the tenant. This written compromise was given seal of the Court by order dated 14th November, 1984 and the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise.

(2.) ON 7th December, 1984 the tenant filed an application under Section 12 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), before the Rent Controller, in which it was stated that on 18th November, 1984 the premises were vacated by the tenant on the asking of the landlords for the purposes of repairs, while all other repairs were carried out the roofs were not repaired. In view of the proviso contained in Section 12 of the Act, request was made to the Rent Controller to order immediate repair/replacement of the roofs of the premises which was to remain in possession of the tenant pending decision of the main application. The landlords opposed that application and by order dated 22nd December, 1984, the prayer was declined. This is tenant's revision against the aforesaid order.

(3.) THE Court below has committed error of law by appreciating the case only from a very limited point of view that is whether the replacement of a roof would be covered by the word 'repair' and has skipped over the compromise entered into between the parties, terms thereof and as to what is the grievance now being made by the tenant for immediate relief.