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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 29.08.2018, passed below Exh.35 in Execution Petition No.327 of 2014, by which the Executing Court, in order to execute the decree of possession, issued possession warrant as prayed by the decree holder-respondent herein.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present petition are that, the petitioner Laxminarayan Khadayat Vanik Trust, being a community trust, possessed immovable property at City: Vadodara, Gujarat. In the property admeasuring 6000 square feet, the trust had constructed shops and offices on the said property. The respondent-Rupesh Solanki being a tenant was in possession of two shops namely no.5 and 6 at the ground floor of the property and since 2000, he was enjoying the tenancy rights in relation to the two shops. The respondent-plaintiff filed Rent Suit No.6 of 2013 and sought a relief of permanent injunction and declaration joining the petitioner-trust and its two trustees who are in management of the trust. In the suit, it was apprehended by the plaintiff that, the trust wants to sell the suit premises and to evict him from the property, some unknown persons came to his shop and threatened him to vacate the shops and handover the possession. Thus, therefore, to protect the tenancy rights and the possession, the suit restraining the petitioners-defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of tenancy rights, was being filed before the Small Causes Court at Vadodara. After service of summons upon the petitioners-defendants, a compromise arrived between the parties and it was recorded in writing on 14.02.2013 duly signed by both the parties. In the compromise at Exh.9, the following terms were agreed by the parties:

(i) Since the landlords has been constructing new building by demolishing the existing building, the tenant – plaintiff has handed over vacant possession of two shops and till the restoration of possession, the tenant shall have not to pay the rent and when tenant put into possession of the newly constructed shop, he will pay rent of Rs.3/- per sq.ft.;

(ii) Each shop i.e. shop nos. 5 and 6 having carpet area admeasuring 20.89 sq.mt, and landlords as per the measurement mentioned in the map, will have to hand over the possession of newly constructed shops within 18 months failing which the landlords shall pay to the tenant a sum of Rs.5001/- per month as compensation till the date of handing over the possession;

(iii) The possession of newly constructed shops as agreed by the parties to be given on the same place as per the map;

(iv) The parties agreed to increase the rent after ten years of the possession @ 3%;

3. In the presence of the parties, the trial Court, had disposed of the suit recording the compromise by passing the following order below Exh.1:

Order below Exh.1 (Rent Suit No.6 of 2013):

“In view of the compromise agreement between the parties produced at Exh.9, the party of the suit settled their dispute as per terms and conditions of the said agreement. Hence, the present suit is hereby disposed of as compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Decree be drawn accordingly to terms and conditions of compromise agreement.

Signed and pronounced in the open court today on this 14th February, 2013 at Vadodara.”

4. The petitioners failed to handover the possession of reconstructed shops