JUDGMENT

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.:—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat dated 17th June, 1975. By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge set aside the concurrent judgments of the executing court and the lower appellate court dismissing objections to the executability of the ejectment decree passed by the trial court dated 21st March, 1968 on the basis of a Joint compromise petition filed by the parties and held the ejectment decree inexecutable being a nullity.

2. It appears that on or about 12th July, 1967 the appellant/landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed a suit in the court of the Joint Civil Judge, Dahod for recovery of possession of the premises against the respondent/ tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) inter alia on the grounds contained in Sections 12(3)(a) i.e. on the ground of non-payment of rent for a period of over six months in spite of notice of demand; 13(1)(e) i.e. on the ground of nuisance and 13(1)(e) i.e. on the ground of bona fide personal use, besides other grounds of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).

3. The tenant filed his written statement on 29th September, 1967 inter alia pleading that the rent charged was excessive; that he was not in arrears of rent, as alleged; that the landlord did not require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide; that the tenant had a large family; that he did not cause any nuisance, as alleged, and that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if the decree for possession is passed against him than it would be to the landlord if the decree was not passed.

4. The trial court framed the issues on 30th November, 1967. On 21st March, 1968 the parties presented consent terms before the court for passing decree in those terms. Below the consent terms the court passed an order - "parties present and admit compromise". Accordingly the compromise decree was passed. As per the consent terms the tenant was to handover possession of the suit premises on or before 31st August, 1971. A translation of the consent terms in Gujarati reads as follows:

"We, the parties make, by mutual understanding compromise as under:

I, the defendant shall hand over the actual possession of the second storey of the house bearing City S. No.614 on dated 31-8-71. And if, I, the defendant do not hand over the If possession of the suit property to the plaintiff accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to execute the decree. The aforesaid period is granted to the defendant for his convenience and accommodation.

2. The amount of rent demanded in the suit of the suit property plus the amount of mesne profits plus the amount of house tax and education cess comes to Rs. 282/- in words rupees two hundred and eighty two plus the amount of Rs. 90/- for mesne profit from the date of suit till the date 20-3-68. Thus the total amount which comes to Rs. 372/- becomes claimable by the plaintiff from the defendants. Towards the aforesaid amount the defendant had deposited the amount of Rs. 312/- in the Court on date 2-9-67. He has deposited the amount of Rs. 10/- on date 21-4-67 Rs.30/- on date 18-1-68 and Rs.20/-on date 21-3-68. Thus total amount of Rs. 372/- has been deposited, and the said amount is to be accepted by the plaintiff. Therefore upon receiving the amount of Rs. 372/- by the plaintiff, it shall be considered that the amount of rent and that of mesne profit has been received for the period up to the date 21-3-68.

3. From date 21-3-68 the defendant shall hand over the possession of the property to the plaintiff or (otherwise) the plaintiff shall execute the decree and shall take (the possession) from the defendant. And the plaintiff shall recover from the defendant the amount of rent at a rate of Rs. 10/- per month and mesne profit at a rate of Rs. 10/- per month till the plaintiff obtains the possession from the said defendant. And the defendant shall pay to the p