AJAY PRASAD Vs. S M BADRUL HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J.S. Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abbas Haider, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party and with the consent of the parties, this revision application has been finally heard and disposed of at this stage.

(2.) This revision application has been filed against the order dated 4.6.2009 passed by Munsif, Danapur in Execution Case No. 11 of 2008. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a tenant of the opposite party who is admittedly his landlord. There is also no dispute that there had earlier been an eviction suit which had ended in a compromise decree on the basis of the compromise petition jointly filed by both the parties. From perusal of the compromise petition which has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed in the revision application it appears that one of the terms incorporated in clause (a) is that the defendant has agreed to pay the amount of arrears of rent as well as the current rent in the manner stipulated therein and thereafter it has been further agreed that if the defendant makes default in payment of the amount of arrears of rent and current rent as stipulated, the plaintiff/landlord would become entitled to recover possession by putting the decree in execution without resorting to filing a suit afresh. For easy reference Clauses (a) and (c) of the compromise petition which is part of the compromise decree is being mentioned as follows:

(3.) Thereafter, it appears that the plaintiff/opposite party has filed Execution Case No. 11 of 2008 before Munsif, Danapur for executing the compromise decree for recovery of possession by dispossessing the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises on the ground that he had committed breach of the terms of the compromise by not paying the amount of the arrears of rent and current rent as stipulated therein.