The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party to a compromise decree cannot challenge the decree after enjoying its benefits, and doing so would amount to an abuse of the court process.

This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 12. 2010 made in M.P. No. 458 of 2006 in E.P. No. 422 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.1438 of 2002 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dismissing the E.A. No. 457 of 2006.

2. It is seenthat the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 1438 of 2002 was filed by deceased, V. Bhagwandass, as landlord, under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1963 (herein after referred to as Act), seeking order of eviction against the petitioners firm, the respondent in the R.C.O.P.

3. When the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 1438 of 2002 was pending, a joint memo of compromise, dated 22. 2003 was filed by the landlord Bhagwandass and the petitioners firm herein, represented by its Partners, Thakkur Shah and Vittal Das Lallu Shah, in the open Court, signed by both the parties and their respective counsel. It is seen that P.W. 1 and R.W. 1 were examined and Exhibits p-1 and P-2 were also marked. The learned Rent Controller, considering the evidence and the joint memo of compromise and also the arguments advanced by both sides, passed the order and decretal order, dated 22. 2003, in terms of the compromise memo, as agreed by both the parties.

4. As per the joint memo of compromise, the petitioner/tenant had agreed to vacate and hand over the possession of the vacant premises to the respondents/landlords on are before 38. 2006 and accordingly, the learned Rent Controller had passed order and decretal order in the R.C.O.P. No.1438 of 2002. The order and decretal order passed in terms of the compromise memo was not challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner/tenant was also in possession and enjoyment of the premises, as per the compromise decree, but failed to vacate and hand over the premises to the landlords. Hence, the respondents/landlords filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.422 of 2006 before the Executing Court. The petitioner, who had not challenged the decree filed Miscellaneous Petitions, seeking orders to dismiss the Execution Petition and for stay, before the Executing Court.

5. The revision petitioners filed miscellaneous petitions in M.P. No.457 of 2006 and M.P.No.458 of 2006 in E.P.No.422 of 2006 under Rules 11 and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 read with Section 47 and 151 C.P.C. by a common order, dated 12. 2010 passed in M.P. No.457 of 2006 and M.P. No. 458 of 2006, the learned Rent Controller dismissed both the petitions, wherein the relief sought for by the petitioners before the Court below in M.P.No.458 of 2006 is to set aside and declare that the decree and order granting eviction in the above R.C.O.P. No.1438 of 2003, dated 22. 2003 as void, on the ground of nullity and unexecutable and in M.P. No. 457 of 2006, seeking an order to grant stay of all further Execution Proceedings in the above E.P. No. 422 of 2006 filed by the respondents/petitioners, pursuant to the compromise order of eviction, dated 22. 2003 passed in R.C.O.P No.1438 of 2002 till the disposal of the Execution Petition.

5. It is an admitted fact that the parties to the R.C.O.P. No. 1438 of 2002 had filed joint memo of compromise signed by both the parties and their respective counsel before the Court below on 22. 2003, whereby the second respondent therein Navin Chand Chandulal & Co., represented by its partners, Thakkur Shah and Vittal Das Lallu Shah, who were in occupation of the premises, a shop portion and godown in the ground floor and also residential portion in the first floor had undertook to vacate and hand over the vacant possession on or before 38. 2006. An amount of Rs. 4,020/- paid by the second respondent towards arrears of rent from April 2002 to March 2003 was also acknowledged by V. Bhagwandas, the petitioner therein. Both the parties had agreed that the petitioner therein to w