This is an application in revision against the order of the Additional District Judge Srinagar dated 4-5-63, whereby the learned Judge affirmed the order of the trial court (Second Additional Munsiff Srinagar) dated 9-8-62 refusing to record a compromise arrived at between the parties in the suit on 30-3-60.

The petitioner landlord brought a suit for ejectment against the respondent pertaining to a piece of land measuring 1070 sq. ft. 8 inches with a prayer for demolition of a wooden structure standing thereon situate in Dukan Sangin Srinagar and for a decree of Rs.324. The suit was instituted on 7-10-58. After the framing of the issues the plaintiff was leading his evidence when on 30-3-60, as already stated, the parties compromised the suit. By means of this compromise the defendant agreed to surrender possession of the suit property by the end of June 1960 on receipt of Rs.800 out of which Rs.400 he received at the time of the execution of the compromise, i.e., on 30-3-60, where-for a separate receipt was executed by the defendant. The previous rent as well as rent up to the end of June 6 was remitted by the plaintiff-landlord. A decree for possession was to ensue in terms of which the defendant had to vacate the premises by the end of June 60. When the compromise which was executed on a date which was not the date fixed in the case was presented in the court on 16-4-60, the defendant resiled from the so-called compromise and sought time to put in his objections. The defendant actually put in his objections on 23-4-60, wherein the stated that the compromise had Been got executed by him through fraud and misrepresentation and in lieu of his surrendering possession of the suit property he was to get an alternative piece of land from the plaintiff. He had been in possession of this property for over fifty years. Moreover, the compromise contravened S. 11 of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. Therefore the civil court had no jurisdiction to grant a decree in terms of the compromise.

After recording the evidence of the parties, the trial court held that the compromise was in contravention of the provisions of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 2009, and therefore unenforceable. It further held, though without discussing any evidence etc. that "nor are we in a position to hold that the defendant settled the matter with the plaintiff according to his free will. It there fore refused to record the compromise Against that order an appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge who, disbelieving the evidence of the plaintiff, held "I am not inclined to believe the statements of witnesses for plaintiff namely Mohd. Sadiq, Mohd. Amin, Abdul Aziz and Abdul Khaliq that the compromise deed was executed by the defendant out of his free will, but on the other hand from the statement of defendant I am convinced that it was got executed from him by misrepresentation and fraud so the said compromise cannot be said as a lawful agreement or compromise in terms of O. 23, R. 3 C P. C."

The appellate court also agreed with the trial court in holding that the compromise was hit by the provisions of the Shops & Houses Rent Control Act and was not therefore enforceable at law.

Before me the finding of both the courts below on the factual as well as the legal side of the case has been attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The argument of the petitioners counsel is that by means of this compromise the plaintiff had given up his claim to the entire rent due and moreover agreed to pay the defendant-tenant Rs.800 in cash out of which Rs.400 had already been paid to him by means of a receipt executed on the same date as the compromise i.e., 30-3-60. The compromise according to the learned counsel, was voluntarily entered into by the defendant. He then contended that this compromise did not in any manner violate any of the terms or provisions of the Houses & Shops Rent Control Act.

The trial court has not given any clear finding nor disc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document