DEVDUTTA DHEER Vs. JANKI VALLABH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred against the judgment of Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated 10th Jan., 81, by which, he confirmed the judgment passed by the Munsif, Jaipur District Jaipur, dated 24th May, 80.

(2.) Birdhichand and Jankivallabh filed a suit for rent and ejectment against Parmanand and others, claiming rent on the basis of Rs. 20/- before the Munsif. During the pendency of the said suit, the parties entered into a compromise on 17th Jan., 68, and it was agreed that the defendants would pay Rs. 30/-per month as rent, w.e.f. 1st Mar., 67, and it was further agreed by the defendant that they would vacate the premises in dispute by the end of 1970. On the basis of this compromise, the learned Munsif, on 9th Feb., 68, decreed the suit Thereafter, decree-holder Birdhichand and judgment debtor Parmanand expired. An execution petition was filed by Jankivallabh and the legal representatives of Birdhichand, against the petitioner Devdutta Dheer, who is legal representative of deceased Parmanand An objection petition was filed by the petitioner, and it was objected that there was a fresh contract of tenancy executed between the parties, and it was agreed that the defendants would pay Rs. 30/- per month as rent, and that the defendants agreed to vacate the suit premises at the end of 1970, and so, the decree was not executable. It was argued by him that the decree holder should have filed a fresh suit for ejectment. It was also objected that the petitioner had paid Rs. 30/-per month as rent even for the year 1970 and the decree holder had accepted that rent. Thus, according to the petitioner, a fresh relationship of landlord and tenant had been created, and so, the decree holder was estopped to execute the decree.

(3.) The learned Munsif, after hearing both the sides, rejected the objections raised by the judgment-debtor petitioner. Then, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, vide his judgment dated 15th Jan., 81. Against that judgment, the present revision petition has been preferred.