BABU RAM Vs. MUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Execution Second Appeal is directed against a concurrent finding of two Courts in a longstanding dispute between a landlord and his tenant. Facts must precede percipience. The appellant Babu Ram was a tenant in the shop portion of the premises known as Shop-cum-Flat No. 95, Grain Market, Chandigarh, under the respondent. In consequence of a suit for ejectment having been filed by the respondent against the appellant, a compromise decree was passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chandigarh on April 22, 1972, after the parties made statement before the Court in regard to the terms of the settlement. These terms were duly embodied in the order of the Court and it would be of utility to reproduce the order in extenso :

(2.) It is not always that compassion is rewarded, before the expiry of the period for which the appellant was allowed to continue in possession of the premises, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) was made applicable to Chandigarh with effect from November 4, 1972. The said Act contained a provision the section 13(1) that a tenant in possession of a building shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act........... except in accordance with the provisions of this section. The appellant shut his eyes to the salutary commitment made by him in Court and chose to continue in possession of the dispute premises even after April 30, 1973, by which date he was supposed to vacate the premises. The respondent then approached the executing Court for necessary relief in the matter. The appellant was ready with objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that after the coming into force of the Rent Act, a fresh tenancy had come into being between the parties and in view of section 13 of the Rent Act, the decree passed on April 22, 1972, had become inexecutable. The necessary issues to cover both these points were framed by the executing Court. No evidence was led by any of the parties. On the basis of arguments addressed at the bar, the executing Court decided both the issues against the appellant and directed the issue of warrants of possession of the disputed premises. This was on February 18, 1975.

(3.) The appellant availed of his right of appeal which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh who by his judgment dated February 9, 1976, dismissed the same. Thereafter, the present second appeal was filed in this Court.