The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the compromise deed and dismissed the tenant's application as belated and colorable.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The petitioner herein/tenant/JD, stands, aggrieved by an order, of, dismissal, made by the learned trial Court, upon, his application cast under Order 14, Rules 1, and, 2 of the CPC, (a) where through, the latter strived for striking of an issue, appertaining to the maintainability of the execution petition, as, instituted before the learned executing court, obviously, by the decree holder/landlord/respondent herein.

2. The afore striving, was, anvil led, upon, the strived elicited evidence, hence, appertaining, to, an espoused struck issue, and, appertaining, to, the , the readiness, or willingness or otherwise, of each, of the contesting parties, to mete deference to the covenants, as, carried, in, the compromise decree. The entire fulcrum of the lis, is, squarely rested, upon, an allusion being made to the compromise deed, embodied in Ex. C-1, entered into, inter se, the the decree holder/landlord, and, the judgment debtor/tenant, and, in consonance wit herewith, the learned Rent Controller concerned, pronounced an order, on, 14.12.2015.

3. The apposite clause (e) of compromise deed, borne in Ex. C-1, reads as under:-

"(e) That after receiving the balance payment and last installment of Rs.21,00,000/- (Twenty one Lakh) as mentioned above the Respondent will hand over and surrender the vacant and peaceful possession of rented accommodation of the petitioner or his authorised representative on or before 31.12.2106. In case Respondent fails to surrender or handover the vacant possession of the rented accommodation to the petitioner on or before 31.12.2016 in that case the petitioner will be entitled to take the possession of rented premises by executing the eviction order as also after the said date the Respondent will be liable to pay use and occupation charges/mesne profits @Rs. 500/- per day to the petitioner for retaining the unauthorised possession of rented accommodation/premises after 31.1.2017, which amount shall be recoverable in execution proceedings itself as a decree of civil Court under Section 26 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. However, it is agreed between the parties that the petitioner is not entitled to or shall not claim any previous arrears of rent or any use and occupation charges from the Respondent till 31.1.22016 by which date the Respondent are required to handover the possession of rented accommodation to the petitioner or his authorised representative."

4. The afore clause (e) makes clear under linings, vis-a-vis, upon, the JD/petitioner herein, receiving from the decree holder, the last agreed installment of Rs.21 lakh, (i) thereupon, the JD/petitioner herein handing over the vacant, and, peaceful possession, of, the demised premises, vis-a-vis, the decree holder, or, vis-a-vis, his authorised representatives, on, or before 31.12.2016, (ii) and, upon the judgement debtor/petitioner herein, making default(s), in, the handing over, of, vacant possession, of the demised premises, to the landlord/decree holder, on or before 31.12.2016, (iii) thereupon, the latter being amenable for coercive eviction, through, the process, of, court, (iv) besides there through a covenant, is, cast, upon, the judgment debtor qua his being amenable to liquidate mesne profits, quantified at Rs.5000/-per day, to the decree holder, for, his/their retaining the unauthorised possession of the demised premises, rather after 31.1.2017.

5. The afore extracted relevant clause of Ex. C-1, does obviously, bring forth the afore visible and trite displays, and, apparently with prima facie defaults being made, by the JD/petitioner herein, vis-a-vis, the afore extracted clause, borne in compromise deed, Ex. C-1, (a) hence, constrained the decree holder/respondent herein to, in consonance with the relevant echoings, as, borne in the apposite clause of Ex. C-1, rather on 10.03.2017, hence institute an execution petition, before the learned trial Court. However, after the JD/petitioner herei