J P GUPTA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision application at the instance of the Judgment Debtor -petitioner has been filed against the order dated 16.5.1998 passed by the Munsif, Danapur, in Execution Case No. 8 of 1997, whereby he has held that the said execution case is Malntainable and the compromise decree is executable.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The Decree -holder Opp. Party filed Title Suit No. 166 of 1981 in the Court of Munsif, Danapur, for a decree of eviction against the petitioner from the house property on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal necessity. The said suit was ended in compromise and a compromise decree was passed on 28.8.1985. In terms of the compromise decree the petitioner was allowed to continue possession of the suit premises for a period of ten years on execution of registered deed of lease. In terms of the compromise the registered deed of lease was executed by and between the parties. After expiry of the period of lease when the petitioner failed to vacate the suit premises, the Decree holder -Opp. party levied the aforementioned execution case in the Court of Munsif and prayed for recovery of possession of the suit property in execution of that decree. The petitioner Judgment -debtor appeared in the execution case and filed show cause/objection questioning the Maintainability of the execution case as the decree itself is unexecutable. The executing Court after hearing the parties by the impugned order over -ruled the objection raised by the petitioner and held that the execution case is Maintainable.

(3.) Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the terms incorporated in the compromise petition and the compromise decree and submitted that in fact the lease was created by virtue of which the petitioner was allowed to continue in occupation of the suit premises on payment of rent. According to the learned Counsel, judgment -debtor petitioner never agreed or undertook to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period of lease. On the other hand, Mr. M.P. Bharti, learned Counsel appearing for the Decree -holder Opp. Party submitted that the eviction suit was decreed on the basis of the compromise and the judgment -debtor petitioner was allowed to continue in possession only for a limited period. Since the judgment -debtor failed to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period so fixed under the compromise, the judgment -debtor -petitioner is liable to be evicted in execution of the compromise decree. Learned Counsel placed heavy reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lala Ramnarayan .