RAM SAVITRI Vs. RAM PIARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -No case is made out to interfere with the order of the appellate authority, though, for different reasons. In proceedings for eviction intiated by the respondent herein against the petitioners, before the appellate authority, the parties entered into a compromise, under the terms of which the petitioners undertook to vacate the premises in their occupation by 15 -1 -1986 and the respondent -landlady also agreed to reconstruct the premises within six months and thereafter to let out to the petitioners, a newly constructed shop. It was also further agreed that in the event of the failure of the landlady to hand over the shop, after reconstruction, the petitioners should be entitled to recover the possession of the shop through Court Under the terms of the compromise, so arrived at, the petitioners, if they had wanted to secure the benefit of a re -constructed shop being made available to them, should have handed over the possession of the premises in their occupation by 15 -1 -1986, which they admittedly did not. What transpires from the record and the evidence is that on 10 -1 -1986, the petitioners claimed that they made attempts to hand over the keys of the premises to the respondent, but that she refused and that necessitated the issuance of notice dated 11 -1 -1986 by the petitioners to the respondent and the petitioners also followed it with an application before the Rent Controllers Court on 15 -1 -1986. The fact that there was refusal on the part of the respondent to receive the keys on 10 -1 -1986, had not been mentioned in the notice issued by the petitioners on 11 -1 -1986 and, therefore, the attempted surrender of possession of the premises on 10 -1 -1986 cannot be accepted. Though the respondent admitted the receipt of the notice dated 11 -1 -1986, on (3 -1 -1986, subsequently, the petitioners did not make any attempt, whatever, to surrender possession, as per the terms of the compromise. However, on 15 -1 -1986 at about 3 p. m. the petitioners filed an application before the Rent Controller stating that they had earlier attempted to surrender possession on 10 -1 -1986 and, having failed to hand over the possession they had also issued a notice dated 11 -1 -1986 and further stated that the petitioners also were tendering the keys of the premises alongwith the application. Though the Rent Controller had ordered notice and had also stated that one of the applicants had come with the keys of the premises, it is seen that the petitioners did not make available the keys before the Court, as stated by them in their application. Ultimately, only on 21 -3 -1986, Shri C. P. Moudgil, Counsel for the petitioners handed over the keys of the premises to the respondent herein before the Court and on the same day the Rent Controller proceeded to dismiss the execution petition filed by the respondent and also the application filed by the petitioners on 15 -1 -1986. From the facts narrated above, it is obvious that the petitioners while merely expressing a desire to surrender possession in accordance with the terms of the compromise, had not really followed it up, by making available the keys to the respondent on or before 15 -1 -1986, as undertaken by them Though in the application filed by the petitioners on 15 -1 -1986, they had stated that the keys are tendered alongwith the application, it was not so done, which again indicates an unwillingness on the part of the petitioners to adhere to the terms of the compromise. Even on the footing that the case of the petitioners that the respondent had declined to receive the keys earlier, was true, it was plainly the duty of the petitioners to have made available the keys of the premises, at the time when the application was filed by them on 15 -1 -1986 and there is no justification, whatever, for their having retained the keys till 21 -3 -1986, when they were handed over to the respondent in Court. In other words, the petitioners had not adhered to and performed their part of obligation under the terms of the compromise and under those circumstances, they cannot seek to enforce any reciprocal obligation on the part of the respondent, in the matter of constructing another shop and making it available to the petitioners. Though the appellate authority did not go into this aspect and had concluded that the compromise itself is invalid and cannot be executed, it is not necessary to go into this question, for, even on merits, the petitioners have not made out a case. The civil revision is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Civil revision dismissed.