CHARAN DASS Vs. NEERAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff against the judgment of the two Courts below dismissing his suit for permanent mandatory injunction, for possession and recovery of Rs. 2,000/ -.

(2.) THE facts of the case are telling. The undisputed facts may be considered before adverting to the points requiring determination in this appeal.

(3.) THE landlord Shri Bhagti Parshad instituted a Civil Revision against this order in this Court, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 168 of 1979 and was dismissed on 7th December, 1984. The parties in the revision accepted that a sum of Rs. 12, 500/ - as the amount settled in the compromise has been deposited in the Chamba Treasury on 6th September, 1979 i.e. the very next day of the compromise. The point of challenge the order in the revision was based on the sole ground that the learned Rent Controller could only pass an order in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 ordering eviction or dismissing the petition. The order of the Rent Controller accepting the compromise declaring Shri Charan Dass, Appellant herein, as the owner was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller. Dealing with both these aspects this Court held: I feel that there is substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent. It is an apparent fact that this intendment behind the enactment of the Act is to safeguard the interest of the tenants. Now in the instant case it was the landlord/revisionist who sought the eviction of the tenant on certain grounds open to him under the Act and if during the course of the proceedings he voluntarily entered into a compromise with the tenant whereby he transferred his proprietary rights in respect of the premises on certain terms and conditions and if those terms and conditions are accepted by the parties and the order is passed in terms of the compromise, I do not think that such an order is vitiated by any illegality. I also feel that this revision petition is not maintainable, on the facts of the present case. The revisionist had made an offer to the Respondent that in case he paid a particular amount within the stipulated period, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the ownership of the premises would vest in the Respondent. Admittedly this condition has been fulfilled by the Respondent and the result is that by virtue of this order the eviction petition of the revisionist stood dismissed. Now in these circumstances if the revisionist wanted to challenge this order which has resulted in the dismissal of his petition, he should have filed an appeal against this order to the appellate authority which course was open to him in accordance with the provisions of Section 21(I)(b) of the Act. This Court has also held in State of Himachal Pradesh V. Smt. Ruldi (I.L.R. Him. Series, 1979, 29) that an order of this nature is final in character which is subject to appeal under the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub -section (i) of Section 21 of the said Act and if such an order has not been challenged in appeal, the revision against it is not maintainable. In view of the above, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. December 7, 1984 Sd./ - R.S. Thankur, J.