RAM CHANDER Vs. PURAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has filed this Civil Revision challenging the ejectment order mainly on the ground that after the ejectment order, there was a compromise between the parties and wherein the landlord admitted the tenant as a fresh tenant and on the same terms and conditions as existed before the ejectment order. The landlord admitted the compromise, but stated that there was a compromise pending an earlier ejectment application which was withdrawn as a result of the said compromise.

(2.) THE landlord filed this execution petition on the basis of ejectment order passed 9.4.1973 in an application for ejectment filed on 29.1.1973. The prayer made therein was for delivery of possession. The objection petition filed by the tenant-judgment debtor shows that the plea to oust the landlord was based on a compromise and further the fact that another ejectment application was filed by the landlord on 16.7.82 and the same was still pending. No particulars and the date of the compromise were given in the objection petition. In reply to this objection petition, any such compromise was denied. It was averred that the judgment-debtor never paid any rent outside the Court and for the purpose, ejectment applications used to be filed. The tenant judgment-debtor and the landlord-decree holder appeared as witnesses. The Executing Court, after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the objection petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent urged that the plea of the tenant-petitioner admitted in his statement recorded by the executing Court is that the compromise was in writing, but the same was not produced in Court and therefore, a presumption can be drawn against the tenant petitioner that if produced, the writing would have gone against him and therefore, non- production thereof raises a strong presumption in favour of the landlord-respondent.