OM PARKASH Vs. DARSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Executing Court which accepted the objections filed by the judgment-debtor under Sections 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and resultantly dismissed the execution petition filed by the decree-holder.

(2.) THE facts : On September 1, 1968, a lease deed (Exhibit D.H.3) was executed between the petitioner-lessor (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder) and Darshan Lal Lajpat Rai-lessees (hereinafter referred to as the judgment-debtors) regarding leasing of a factory comprised of building and machinery and other equipment detailed in the schedule which was appended to the lease deed for a period of five years with effect from September 1, 1968, to August 31, 1973 at a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. The lease deed further stipulated that the lessee cannot make any modification or alteration in the machinery installed. If any machinery is installed by the lessee during the continuance of the lease, he was to remove the same on the expiry of the lease period. The lessee was refrained from using the business name of the lessor M/s. Manohar Metal Works. The covenant further stipulated that in case of any dispute arising with respect to the interpretation or any other matter relating to the lease deed, it was to be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act. It appears that on the expiry of the lease period, the judgment-debtors did not surrender possession. The matter was referred to the arbitration of Shri Des Raj through the intervention of the Court and he was directed to decide the following dispute as is evidenced by the Court order dated June 12, 1975 (Exhibit D.H. 2/5) :-

(3.) THE ratio of this judgment fully covers the facts of the instant case. Even otherwise, as observed by M.M. Punchhi, J. in the Full Bench judgment referred supra, the laws are meant for people and not people for laws. The decree-holder in the present case leased out the factory - a running business - to the judgment-debtors. The terms and conditions of the lease are incorporated in the lease deed which is a registered document. One of the conditions in the lease deed was that in the event of any dispute between the parties, the matter has to be referred to arbitration. The arbitrator was nominated by the Court with the consent of the parties. He gave his award which was made the rule of the Court. The judgment-debtors took advantage and remained in possession of the demised premises for a period beyond the one mutually agreed upon. Since the judgment-debtors failed to comply with the terms of the consent decree, execution had to be taken out and thereafter objections to the execution were filed. Thus, the proceedings indicate that with impunity the judgment-debtors have been able to thwart the attempt of the decree-holder to execute the order which was passed on the solemn assurance given by the parties. May or may not be the parties were aware of the tenancy legislation. They may not be able to foresee what will be the future amendments in the legislation. In a welfare State, the State has to guarantee equality before law to all its citizens and it must ensure that equality exists not on paper but in practice. Suitable amendment must be made in the legislation excluding the tenancy with regard to running business and/or solemn agreements arrived at between the parties, even where by mutual consent they override some provision of the statute.