IMPORTANT POINT
A person in settled possession of property cannot be forcibly evicted without due process of law, and eviction notices must comply with statutory provisions governing leasehold rights.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.

The writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th September 2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2237 of 2015. This was the second writ petition filed by the appellant to challenge the eviction notice dated 24th July 2014 requiring him to vacate Zarina villa within twenty-four hours.

2. The writ petition has been dismissed primarily on the ground of suppression of material facts. The property in dispute is a leasehold property within Plot Nos.428 and 678 in Holding No.176 of village Sarley (Thana No.159) in the district of Hazaribagh. This property is a Khas Mahal Estate spread over 1.35 acres which was given to Mrs. Zarina Hamid through an indenture of lease for a fixed period. Mrs. Zarina Hamid died issueless and her brother Sabir Ali came in possession of the subject-property. After his death, the subject-property devolved to his legal heirs Fazle Ali, Shaukat Ali and Asma Khatoon. The respondents have pleaded that Shaukat Ali and Asma Khatoon left for the United States of America and the subject-property came under the overall control of Fazle Ali. Over the time, the lease for the subject-property was renewed for a further period of 30 years from 1st April 1978 to 31st March 2008. Before expiry of the lease period, Fazle Ali entered into an agreement with the appellant on 9th October 2002 for the sale of 0.36 acres of the subject-property with dilapidated structures standing thereon for a consideration amount of Rs.5,61,000/-. According to the appellant, he entered Zarina villa with the consent of Fazle Ali who developed ill-intention and refused to execute the sale deed and therefore he was constrained to institute Title Suit No. 65 of 2004 for specific performance of the agreement dated 9th October 2002. Later on, the appellant and Fazle Ali settled their dispute and a joint compromise petition was filed in the said suit. Based on the joint compromise petition, a compromise decree was passed on 23rd November 2005 and Title Suit No.65 of 2004 was disposed of in the following terms:

“3. After receiving notice the defendant appeared and filed a joint compromise petition stating therein that a good relation has been restored between the parties on the intervention of their well-wishers and both the parties have been compromised the suit on following terms:-

i. That a sum of Rs.3,53,000/- is payable by the plaintiff to the defendant and out of which a sum of Rs.82,000/- has been paid today by the plaintiff to the defendant and remaining Rs.2,76,000/- shall be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant within 30-4-2006 or on the date of execution of sale whichever is earlier.

ii. That the defendant has handed over to the plaintiff an application duly signed by him to the plaintiff through which the defendant seeks permission of the Khas Mahal authority to transfer the suit premises to the plaintiff.

iii. That as already and otherwise agreed the plaintiff shall pursue the application for permission before Khas Mahal authorities and whenever required by the plaintiff the defendant shall extends his co-operation and support in pursuing the said application.

iv. That all expenses in pursuing the said application including all deposits to be made under Khas Mahal circular, shall be incurred by the plaintiff.

v. That all expenses for final conveyance of sale including for stamp duty and registration shall be incurred by the plaintiff.

4. It is also stated in the compromise petition that the said compromise has been effected without any threat, fear or inducement between the parties and failure on part of the plaintiff to make payment as stipulated in Clause 3(i) of the aforesaid condition render this compromise inoperative and ineffective and the party shall free to take recourse to legal remedies.

FINDINGS

5. Since good relationship has been restored between both the parties and they have compromised t