By the court—This is an appeal under sec. 18 (1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.3.61, in an execution second appeal. It raises a question about the executability of a compromise decree between a landlord and a tenant. The facts necessary for appreciating the controversy are briefly these.

2. The appellants before us were the decree-holders. They had filed a suit against the respondent-judgment-debtor for arrears of rent and for eviction of the respondent from a shop at Nagaur which had been taken by the judgment-debtor from the decree-holders on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. It was claimed that 14 months rent was due and that decree-holders were entitled to evict Hukamchand. The suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. As the question of executability of the decree falls to be considered on the terms of the compromise, the salient features of the compromise are stated hereunder.

3. The compromise states that the parties have agreed to compromise the suit on the terms mentioned therein. The first clause states that each of the parties shall bear half of the costs. Clause 2 states that the defendant had paid Rs. 280/-on that date and upto 1.10.57 Rs. 370/- were due and to this was to be added half of the cost of the suit which the defendant undertook to pay six monthly instalments of Rs. 150/- each and the instalments were to be paid till the arrears were cleared. Clause 3 provided that from 1.10.57,, the defendant shall pay Rs.25/- per month as rent of the shop and this he shall pay on the first of every month. Clause 4 laid down that in case of non-compliance of clauses 2 and 3 by the defendant, the plaintiff was to be entitled to get the defendant evicted from the shop. Clause 5 provided that whatever payments shall be made would be evidenced by receipts and no payment shall be acceptable without a receipt. In the end it was prayed that a decree for compromise be given. This compromise was dated 21.10.57.

4. The court decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. As the judgment-debtor did not pay the monthly rent for about two months, the decree-holder filed the execution application on 7.1.58. The application was registered on 16.1.58. On 25.1.58,, the judgment-debtor made an application in court that he was paying Rs. 250/- and cost and the same be deposited. The court asked the decree-holder on 25.1.58, if he would accept this amount, but, as the decree-holder was not willing to accept this amount, the judgment-debtor was directed to deposit it later on, as on that day the Treasury was closed by the time the case would be taken up by the court. On 29.1.58, the judgment-debtor paid the amount. The judgment-debtor then objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the same was not executable. He also contended that he was entitled to the protection of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act", and urged that agreement which resulted in compromise was not valid being opposed to public policy in that it tended to deprive him of the protection afforded by law. The Execution Court (Civil Judge) over-ruled the objection and held that the decree was executable.

5. The judgment-debtor then went up in appeal to the District Judge, Merta, but was unsuccessful. He then filed a second appeal to this Court which was heard by the learned Single Judge, who came to the conclusion that the decree was not executable and in the result he set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge and ordered the dismissal of the execution application. It was contended before the learned Judge that the compromise between the parties resulted in the creation of a fresh tenancy and, therefore, the only remedy of the landlord was to file a fresh suit. It was urged that the decree; as it stood, was only a declaratory one and was thus not capable of execution. A preliminary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document