Judgment

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is by the landlord against the order dated 22nd August, 1996 passed by the Karnataka High Court in HRRP No. 1769 of 1995 arising out of HRC No. 66 of 1994. The appellant-landlord filed the aforesaid HRC case under Section 21(1)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Con­trol Act against the tenant-respondent in respect of the premises in question. The aforesaid proceeding was ultimately disposed of on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties and the terms embodied in the compromise petition dated 22nd April, 1994 formed a part of the decree of the court. In accordance with the aforesaid compromise decree the tenant delivered the vacant possession of the tenanted premises and the landlord was permitted to demolish and reconstruct a new building thereon. It was also stipulated in the compromise that the tenant will be accommodated in the two shop rooms measuring 200 sq. ft. each on the ground floor soon after the new construction is over and be further accommodated in two shop rooms measuring 200 sq. feet each in cellar floor for the purpose of godown after the construction is over. Clause (5) of the compromise decree dealt with the rent to be paid by the tenant or occupying the premises in the new building after construction of the same. The dispute in the present case centres round the terms and conditions of the aforesaid clause (5) and what was the rent intended to be paid by the tenant for occupation of one shop in the cellar floor and one shop in the ground floor. The appellant-landlord on getting vacant possession of the tenanted premises, demolished the same and put up a new construction. The tenant-respondent filed a petition for getting possession of the newly built shops in accordance with the compromise decree dated 22.4.1994 and the said petition was registered as Execution Petition No. 204 of 1995. In the said execution proceedings the appellant-landlord was set ex-parte and the executing court directed issue of delivery warrant. Subsequently, under the orders of the executing court the lock was broke open and with the police help the tenant-respondent got the possession of the premises as per the compromise decree and the execution case was closed. The landlord-appellant approached the High Court against the order of the executing court directing delivery of the possession in favour of the respondent and obtained an interim order of stay of issuance of deliv­ery warrant on 6.12.1995, but much before the said date the premises in question had been possessed by the res­pondent-tenant on 28.11.1995, and therefore, the interim order issued by the High Court became infructuous. The landlord-appellant before the High Court though raised a contention that the compromise decree could not have been executed but Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant did not press the same. The tenant thus has obtained possession of 400 sq. ft. of the newly constructed building in execu­tion of the compromise decree and that has become final. A further contention had been raised by the landlord before the High Court to the effect that the compromise decree is an integrated one and under the decree though the tenant would be entitled to get possession of two shop rooms measuring 200 sq. feet each after the new construction of the shop rooms are over but the said tenant is also liable to pay rent at a concessional rate of 25% less of the prevailing fair rent in the area and without discharging that obligation the tenant could not have merely obtained possession of the two shop rooms measuring 400 sq. feet in execution of a part of the decree. The tenant, however, resisted the aforesaid contention by contending that the tenant would be liable to pay 25% less of the fair rent to be determined by the Controller under Section 14 of the Act and until that determination is made the landlord cannot resist the execution of the decree in rela­tion to possession