JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This petition raises an important question of law regarding the interpretation of consent terms filed in a suit instituted under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Rent Act"). The law relating to the nature of the consent terms is fairly well-settled as I will show little later in this judgment. Nevertheless, some variations do arise form time to time and this petition provides one of such variations which has to be dealt with in the light of the well-settled law.

2. The petitioner filed a suit, being Regular Suit No. 419 of 1968, against the respondent for possession of certain premises which were tenanted by the respondent. The ground urged in support of the prayer for possession was, among others, that the respondent had committed default in the payment of arrears of rent, thus meriting a decree for eviction under section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act.

3. On 8th July, 1970 a decree in terms of the compromise signed by the parties was passed. It is necessary to refer to the relevant terms of the compromise on which the decree was passed in the said suit. Clau

Click Here to Read the rest of this document