1. Eviction suit decreed for bona fide need — Compromise allowing tenant's son to occupy premises for a fixed term — Failure to vacate upon expiry. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 58
2000(5) Supreme 75
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Som Dutt (Dead) by LRs. -Appellant
versus
Govind Ram -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2000
(Arising out SLP (C) No. 8734 of 1999)
Decided on 10-1-2000
A party who undertakes in a compromise to vacate premises by a specific date is estopped from objecting to the execution of the decree for possession, regardless of whether the compromise is deemed to have created a new tenancy.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 21, Rule 10 r/w Order 23, Rule 3-Execution of decree-Compromise decree-Suit for eviction-Suit decreed-Compromise before appellate Court-Tenant s son G who was not party to suit, according to compromise, was to remain in portion of premises for 10 years and landlord would be entitled to initiate execution proceeding on failure of G to vacate premises after 10 years-Eviction petition by landlord after 10 years- G resiling from undertaking given-Executing Court allowing landlord s petition-High Court holding that compromise created new tenancy in favour of G -Held, High Court s reason untenable- G is estopped from filing any application objecting to execution of decree. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a compromise agreement allowing a tenant's son to remain in possession for a fixed period creates a new tenancy preventing execution of an eviction decree. (Para 3 )
3. The compromise allowed a person already in possession to continue for a fixed term; the agreement to vacate by a specific date precludes objections to execution. (Para 4 )
4. A party who undertakes to vacate premises by a specific date under a compromise is estopped from objecting to the execution of the decree. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Trial Court order restored — Costs awarded to appellant. (Para 5 )
6. Does a compromise allowing a person already in possession to continue for a fixed period necessarily create a new tenancy that prevents eviction?
No. Even if such an arrangement is viewed as a tenancy, the agreement to vacate by a specific date remains binding and allows the landlord to seek execution of the possession order. (Para 4 )
7. What is the legal effect of a compromise agreement that specifies a date for vacating premises?
Such an agreement creates a binding obligation to vacate by the specified date, and failure to do so entitles the landlord to initiate execution proceedings for possession. (Para 2 , 4 )
8. How does the doctrine of estoppel apply to a party who agrees to vacate premises under a court-recorded compromise?
A party who provides a specific undertaking to vacate premises by a certain date is estopped from subsequently filing applications to object to the execution of the decree for possession. (Para 4 )
ORDER
Special leave granted.
2. A suit for eviction was filed by the appellant on 13th November, 1969 against the tenants. One of the tenants was Bishandas (defendant No. 2), the father of respondent. It appears that the suit was decreed in 1975 by the trial Court on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and in 1981 a compromise was recorded between the parties in the appeal. Even though Govind Ram was not a party to the said suit but in the application which was filed for recording of the compromise it was stated that Govind Ram who was the son of the tenant would remain in half portion of the land for a period of 10 years and that he and his heirs would vacate the premises on 31st December, 1990 and it was also stated that if they did not vacate, the landlord would be at liberty to take out execution proceedings for the possession of the land.
3. Honesty in transaction being at a discount, Govind Ram resiled from the undertaking which was given which led to the appellant filing an execution application. The said application was allowed but the High Court in revision reversed the decision of the executing court holding that the compromise did create a new tenancy in favour of Govind Ram.
4. We do not agree with the reason given by the High Court in reversing the decision of the executing Court. It is not in dispute that the premises in question were in the occupation of Bishandas, the father of Govind Ram (respondent). By virtue of the compromise which was entered into in 1981 before the appellate Court, the son of the tenant who was already in possession was allowed to continue for a period of 10 years. Even if there be a creation of tenancy, the compromise between the parties including Govind Ram was that Govind Ram would vacate the premises on 31st December, 1990. It is on that basis that the compromise was arrived at and the order passed by the appellate Court. Apart from anything else. Govind Ram is clearly estopped from filing any application objecting to the execution of the decree. On this ground alone, Govind Ram has to be non-suited.
5. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the order of the trial Court. The respondent shall pay costs throughout to the appellant.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
**************
