1. Heard Mr. J.S. Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abbas Haider, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party and with the consent of the parties, this revision application has been finally heard and disposed of at this stage.

2. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 04.06.2009 passed by Munsif, Danapur in Execution Case No. 11 of 2008. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a tenant of the opposite party who is admittedly his landlord. There is also no dispute that there had earlier been an eviction suit which had ended in a compromise decree on the basis of the compromise petition jointly filed by both the parties. From perusal of the compromise petition which has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed in the revision application it appears that one of the terms incorporated in clause (a) is that the defendant has agreed to pay the amount of arrears of rent as well as the current rent in the manner stipulated therein and thereafter it has been further agreed that if the defendant makes default in payment of the amount of arrears of rent and current rent as stipulated, the plaintiff/landlord would become entitled to recover possession by putting the decree in execution without resorting to filing a suit afresh. For easy reference Clause (a) and (c) of the compromise petition which is part of the compromise decree is being mentioned as follows:-

(a) Out of total amount of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1200.00 per month as per Gregorian Calendar month from April 2005 to October 2006 amounting to Rs. 18000/- the defendant shall pay Rs. 500/- per month together with current rent of Rs. 1200/- total amounting to Rs. 1700/- to the plaintiff from the month of December 2006 with regularity till the arrears are cleared.

(c) In case of default in payment of rent as aforesaid it shall be permissible for the plaintiff to take over possession of the premises detailed at the foot of this petition and arrears by executing this decree itself without filing a suit a fresh.

3. Thereafter, it appears that the plaintiff/opposite party has filed Execution Case No. 11 of 2008 before Munsif, Danapur for executing the compromise decree for recovery of possession by dispossessing the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises on the ground that he had committed breach of the terms of the compromise by not paying the amount of the arrears of rent and current rent as stipulated therein.

4. The defendant/petitioner/judgment debtor appeared in the execution case and filed a petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising objection to the executability of the decree and praying for dismissal of the execution case on the ground, firstly, that the compromise decree as such for eviction is not executable as it does not conform to the grounds mentioned in Section 11 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (henceforth as ‘Act’) and the satisfaction of the Court regarding the existence of those grounds or either of them is absent. The other ground raised by the defendant/petitioner is that he has never committed default and breach of the terms of the compromise by not paying the rent as stipulated in the compromise decree. The learned Court below after hearing the parties has, by the impugned order, dismissed the aforesaid petition of the defendant/petitioner filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is under challenge in this revision application.

5. The first ground of objection to the executability of the decree is that no satisfaction has been recorded by the Court passing the decree regarding existence of any of the grounds as mentioned in Section 11 of the Act and thus the decree having been passed solely on the consent of the parties is nullity and therefore not executable. It has been submitted that the existence of one of the grounds as mentioned in Section 11 of the Act was sin