Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(NAGPUR BENCH)
MANISH PITALE, J.
Mirza Sharique Baig S/o. Mirza Azim Baig & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Mohd. Nasim S/o. Abdul Salim – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1797 of 2022
Decided on : 27-07-2022
COMPROMISE DECREE - EXECUTABILITY - RENT CONTROL LEGISLATION - TERMS OF COMPROMISE - INTERPRETATION - JURISDICTION - REVISION APPLICATION - MAINTAINABILITY - SMALL CAUSE COURT - PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1887 - MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit against the petitioners seeking recovery of possession under Section 16(1)(e)(ii) and (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (the said Rent Control Act) on the grounds of unlawful subletting and bona fide requirement. The petitioners filed their written statement opposing the pleadings stated in the plaint. The suit was filed in the year 2011. It is also an admitted position that the respondent had earlier filed a proceeding bearing M.J.C. No.21/2004, before the Small Causes Court against the petitioners for fixation of fair rent, which was allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.10/- per square feet per month towards rent from the date of the initiation of the proceedings. The petitioners filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.14/2016, challenging the said judgment and order fixing fair rent in the aforesaid manner. It is during the pendency of the said appeal that in the aforementioned suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.01/2011, filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioners, an application was filed jointly by the rival parties before the Small Causes Court under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for passing a decree on compromise. In terms of the said application, the Small Causes Court passed compromise decree, recording that the parties admitted the contents of the compromise, as a consequence of which, the suit was disposed of and the compromise decree was drawn up.
Finding of the Court:
The District Court was justified in allowing the revision application and restoring the execution proceedings bearing SD No.156/2018.
Issues: 1. Whether the compromise decree passed by the Small Causes Court was an executable decree or a nullity or that it had merely recorded terms of compromise that gave rise to a fresh landlord-tenant relationship with all the protection afforded by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (the said Rent Control Act), being available to the tenant, as a consequence of which, the landlord would have to institute fresh proceedings for eviction of the tenant? 2. Whether the civil revision application filed before the District Court was maintainable, for the reason that execution proceedings were being pursued under the CPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A compromise decree in such cases where eviction is sought under Rent Control Legislation, is capable of execution or not, will depend on the facts of each individual case. 2. Whether a compromise decree in such cases where eviction is sought under Rent Control Legislation, is capable of execution or not, will depend on the facts of each individual case. 3. It was emphasized on behalf of the petitioners that in the above quoted compromise terms, since the petitioners did not concede to the ground of eviction pleaded by the respondent or that they did not give up their defence as in the case of K.K. Chari Vs. R.M. Seshadri (supra), the decree was inexecutable. But, while raising such a contention, the petitioners have ignored the series of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above, in the case of Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram and others (supra), Roshan Lal and another Vs. Madan Lal and others (supra), Suleman Noormohamed and others Vs. Umarbhai Janubhai (supra), Hiralal Moolchand Doshi Vs. Barot Raman Lal Ranchhoddas (dead) by LRs. (supra), Som Dutt (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Govind Ram (supra) and Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) Vs. Rajinder Singh and others (supra), wherein the position of law indicated in the concurring judgment of Alagiriswami, J. in the case of K.K. Chari Vs. R.M. Seshadri (supra), was emphasized upon and evolved, to hold that compromise terms need to be appreciated in such cases alongwith pleadings of the parties, to examine whether implied admission or implicit admission of the tenant can be made out. Having signed the compromise terms agreeing to vacate the suit premises by a specific date, the tenant agrees to the decree in invitum. 4. This is because, as emphasized in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat (dead) through LR. Sadhna Rai (Smt.) Vs. Rajinder Singh and others (supra), under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, which consists of two parts, where the tenant agrees to vacate the premises within a time frame or by a specified date, such a compromise falls within the first part, which is an executable decree.
Final Decision: Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether a compromise decree passed by the Court of Small Causes, was an executable decree or a nullity or that it had merely recorded terms of compromise that gave rise to a fresh landlord-tenant relationship with all the protection afforded by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rent Control Act”), being available to the tenant, as a consequence of which, the landlord would have to institute fresh proceedings for eviction of the tenant. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it would be necessary to refer to the facts leading to filing of the present petition.
3. The respondent i.e. the landlord filed suit against the petitioners i.e. the tenants seeking recovery of possession under Section 16(1)(e)(ii) and (g) of the said Rent Control Act on the grounds of unlawful subletting and bona fide requirement. The petitioners filed their written statement opposing the pleadings stated in the plaint. The suit was filed in the year 2011. It is also an admitted position that the respondent had earlier filed a proceeding bearing M.J.C. No.21/2004, before the Small Causes Court against the petitioners for fixation of fair rent, which was allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.10/- per square feet per month towards rent from the date of the initiation of the proceedings. The petitioners filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.14/2016, challenging the said judgment and order fixing fair rent in the aforesaid manner. It is during the pendency of the said appeal that in the aforementioned suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.01/2011, filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioners, an application was filed jointly by the rival parties before the Small Causes Court under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for passing a decree on compromise. In terms of the said application, the Small Causes Court passed compromise decree, recording that the parties admitted the contents of the compromise, as a consequence of which, the suit was disposed of and the compromise decree was drawn up. The terms of compromise read as follows:
“The Plaintiff and the Defendants named above most respectfully jointly submits as under: -
1. That the parties to the present suit i.e. the plaintiff and the defendants are desirous of settling amicably the pending case, which has been pending for almost five years and thereby put to rest this long litigation on the following terms and conditions as under:
2. That the defendants have agreed to vacate the suit premises in his possession as specifically mentioned in the schedule of the property attached with the plaint and hand over the peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff within the period on or dated 30.11.2018.
3. That the defendants shall regularly pay the Rent @ Rs.20,000 from the date of 1/1/2016 in respect of aforesaid suit premises on or before 5th of every month positively without fail upto 30/11/2018.
4. That the defendants have agreed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises as existing today and specifically shall not remove or disturb the fixtures and tin shed laid over the Second Floor of the suit premises by Haji Mirza Azim Baig i.e. the late Father of Defendants, which was affixed in pursuance of second part of Agreement dated 1.11.1996 with the plaintiff.
5. The defendants further agrees and covenants that on failure to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on or before the period fixed i.e. dated 30.11.2018, the defendants shall be liable for damaged for the occupation of the suit premises @ Rs.1200/- (Rs. one thousand two hundred only) per day, till they handover the vacant possession of the Suit Premises.
6. In view of t
AI
A compromise decree in such cases where eviction is sought under Rent Control Legislation, is capable of execution or not, will depend on the facts of each individual case.
A compromise decree creating a fresh tenancy must comply with statutory provisions governing eviction proceedings; execution of such a decree without adherence to the law is impermissible.
The executing court affirmed that a valid compromise decree must be executed regardless of the landlords' objections, emphasizing the importance of compliance with contractual obligations.
A compromise decree recognizing pre-existing tenancy rights does not require registration, upholding the right to execute it based on agreed terms under the Civil Procedure Code.
Compromises in eviction cases must satisfy statutory grounds for eviction as per the Rent Control Act; the court cannot validate compromises that ignore these requirements.
A purely declaratory decree that creates a fresh lease is non-executable; ejectment requires a separate suit per law.
A default in payment under a compromise decree does not create a new tenancy and does not necessitate a separate eviction suit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
