Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arijit Banerjee, Om Narayan Rai, JJ.
Jaspal Singh Chandhok – Petitioner
Versus
Sri Gobin Chand Seal – Respondent
APOT 219 of 2024, CS 992 of 1986 IA No: GA 1 of 2024
Decided On : 11-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of relevant factual background. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments by the appellant regarding the tenancy status and execution rights. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments from the respondent challenging the execution process. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's analysis on the intention behind the compromise. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. court's examination of the legality of the compromise. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. discussion on the statutory defenses and their implications. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. evaluation of the acknowledgment of tenancy and compromise agreement. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 8. final observations on the nature of jurisdiction and enforceability. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 9. final decision on the maintainability of execution. (Para 58) |
| 10. conclusion and directive for remedy. (Para 59) |
JUDGMENT :
Om Narayan Rai, J.
1. The instant appeal takes exception to a judgment and order dated May 03, 2024 passed in Execution Case No. 364 of 2021 whereby the aforesaid Execution Case has been dismissed upon holding the same to be not maintainable.
FACTS:
2. Bereft of minute details, the essential facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:-
a) The respondent (i.e. the defendant in the suit) was a tenant under the appellant (i.e. the plaintiff in the suit) in respect of a shop room bearing no. 1A admeasuring about 1014 sq.ft. together with a porch at premises no. 30, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Police Station- Bowbazar, Kolkata-700013.
b) The appellant herein instituted a suit being C.S. No. 922 of 1986 for eviction of the respondent from the said premises i.e. the said shop room bearing no. 1A.
c) The said suit was ultimately decreed on compromise on June 23, 2014. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent as aforesaid, the aforesaid shop room was surrendered by the respondent to the appellant and the respondent took possession of the shop room no. 1A/1 admeasuring about 507 sq.ft. (being the fifty percent of the shop room no. 1A) together with a wooden mezzanine floor at the ground floor at premises no. 30, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Police Station - Bowbazar, Kolkata-700013.
d) In terms of the said compromise, the respondent-tenant was entitled to remain in occupation of the said shop room being shop room no. 1A/1 for a period of ten years and the appellant-landlord was precluded from terminating the tenancy prior to the expiry of the said period of ten years unless the terms and conditions stipulated in the settlement as also the grounds provided in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 were violated by the respondent-tenant.
e) Alleging that the respondent had defaulted in payment of the rent in terms of the compromise decree the appellant put the decree dated June 23, 2014 into execution by filing an execution case being E.C. No.364 of 2021 before expiry of the said period of ten years.
f) The said execution case was contested by the respondent inter alia on the ground that since the respondent had been inducted in shop room no. 1A/1 afresh upon the respondent surrendering his earlier tenancy in respect of shop room no. 1A, therefore, the same gave rise to a fresh cause of action and the respondent could not be evicted by the appellant without instituting a fresh suit for eviction.
g) The respondent’s contention weighed with the Hon’ble Single Judge and the Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the execution case being E.C. No. 364 of 2021 by a judgment and order dated May 03, 2024.
h) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated May 03, 2024 the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:-
3. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Hon’ble Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the tenancy which formed the subject matter of the suit was in respect of
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.
A default in payment under a compromise decree does not create a new tenancy and does not necessitate a separate eviction suit.
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 purely declaratory decree that creates a fresh lease is non-executable; ejectment requires a separate suit per law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person who approaches the court with unclean hands cannot be granted relief, and dishonest litigants cannot abuse the process of the court.
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.
No eviction can be ordered unless ground seeking eviction is made out, even if parties had entered into a compromise and that the invalidity on that count can even be raised in execution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of first default in payment of rent by a deceased tenant extends to the heirs, and mere enhancement of rent without altering other....
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
