DEVKI NANDAN NAGPAL Vs. SILVER SCREEN ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE premises in dispute is a cinema let by the landlord to the tenant. An application was made under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1949), by the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non -payment of arrears of rent. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, and the landlord filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller under Section 15 of that Act.

(2.) IN this High Court as between the same parties another litigation was pending with regard to the same cinema building, and the parties entered into a compromise putting an end not only to that litigation but also to other litigation between them including the litigation about the ejectment of the tenant from the cinema at the stage of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. A compromise was arrived at on January 7, 1964, and it said that the landlord shall withdraw the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority in his application for ejectment of the tenant, and that the tenant will withdraw his application, pending before the Rent Controller, for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Act. The tenant withdrew his application which was of course then dismissed, but the landlord refused to withdraw the appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his application for ejectment of the tenant. On that the tenant made an application before the Appellate Authority that the compromise between the parties be enforced and the appeal of the landlord be dismissed. The landlord raised a number of objections to that application. The Appellate Authority referred to clauses 12 and 13 of the compromise between the parties which read thus. "12. That in case the landlord does not carry out the terms of this compromise, he shall be held responsible for all the losses that the lessee may suffer because of its breach. 13. That in case, the lessee does not carry out the terms of this compromise, he shall be held responsible for all the losses that the landlord may suffer because of its breach." And the Appellate Authority was of the opinion that if there is some term of the contract of compromise between the parties which has not been carried out by the tenant, the landlord can seek damages under Clause 13, but that he was bound by the compromise in so far as it relates to the withdrawal of the appeal. So the Appellate Authority by its order of January 5, 1965, accepted the application of the tenant and finding that the compromise was lawfully entered into between the parties, he proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the landlord, leaving the parties to their own costs; and it is the landlord, who appeals against the order of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) THE parties may be bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at by them in this Court on January 7, 1964, but even so the compromise does not amount to an application by the landlord before the Appellate Authority for the withdrawal of his appeal against the tenant. The landlord cannot be compelled to make such an application. The tenant cannot bring it to the notice of the Appellate Authority the compromise and ask the Appellate Authority that it should be treated as an application by the landlord for withdrawal of his appeal. While the landlord has a power and the right to withdraw his appeal and have it dismissed, he cannot be compelled to make an application for withdrawal of the same, nor a document executed by him somewhere else can be treated, not at his instance, but at the instance of the opposite party, as an application by the landlord for withdrawal of the appeal. The approach of the Appellate Authority that the landlord can have recourse to Clause 13 of the compromise because the tenant may have committed breach of the compromise is equally available against the tenant who can have recourse to Clause 12 of the compromise to have himself compensated by damages for any breach committed by the landlord for instance in his refusing to withdraw the appeal against the tenant before the Appellate Authority.