SHREELAL Vs. SHRI ADI GOUR BRAHMIN SANSTHA JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's second appeal under sec. 100 read with sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellate judgment of the learned District Judge Jaipur City dated 4th November, 1959.

(2.) THE facts may very briefly be stated as follows :- Shri Adi Gour Brahmin (Murti Kalakar) Sanstha Jaipur, instituted a suit through the members of its Working Committee against Shreelal alias Shri Gopal for the ejectment from a shop and for the recovery of arrears of rent in the court of the learned Munsif, Jaipur West. This suit was compromised and decree in the following terms was passed on 4th November. 1958. "the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 316/13/3 and for ejectment is decreed on the following terms: (a) THE tenant shall pay Rs 316/13/3 and costs in monthly instalments of Rs. 100/-, the first instalment being payable on 15th of November, 1958, and the remaining amount payable by further monthly instalments of Rs. 100/commencing from 15th of December, 1958. In case the defendant made payment as aforesaid, the decree-holder would not be entitled to eject him from the shop. But in case the defendant failed to pay even one instalment, according to the terms of the decree, the decree-holder will be entitled to immediately enforce ejectment".

(3.) ON a consideration of the general principles and the purpose of the rule, I have no hesitation in concluding that the rule is imperative and mandatory and prevents an execution court from recognising uncertified payments and adjustments for any purpose whatsoever and that a judgment-debtor cannot avoid this rule by merely contending that the alleged uncertified payments should be recognised so as to enable him to plead that there was no default on his part to enable the decree-holder to enforce bis decree for ejectment. I do not see any adequate reason for importing limitations in this rule on considerations contemplated in the Lahore case. Incidentally, I may observe that even the rule of the Lahore decisions cannot help the judgment-debtor in the present case where there is a clear direction in the decree for the payment of money on account of arrears of rent.