JUDGMENT

Ms. Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Civil Revision has been filed seeking setting aside of order dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad whereby the objections of the petitioners have been dismissed; and order dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure P2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby the petitioners' appeal against above said order has also been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners were tenant in the demised premises describable as shop No.4 at ground floor, SCO No.102-103, Sector 16 Market, Dwarka Complex, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised premises'). The said premises were taken on rent by the petitioners from the respondent/landlord vide rent agreement dated 05.11.2007. As a dispute arose between the parties in the year 2010 on various counts, the respondent filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioners. However, during pendency of the said suit, the matter was compromised between the parties and said civil suit was decreed in terms of compromise vide Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure P3 collectively).

3. As per terms of compromise, the petitioners undertook to vacate the demised premises on or before 30.06.2015. It was however, further stipulated therein that in case, the petitioners failed to vacate the premises on or before 30.06.2015, then a decree for recovery of Rs.3,64,020/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum may be passed in favour of respondent.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that there was also a dispute inter se the parties in respect of another shop No.9 in the same complex which was in occupation of the petitioners and since the said shop was a Gun House/Armoury Shop it could not be shifted without prior permission of the State Government. However, said shop No.9 has no concern with the present proceedings.

5. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they offered to vacate the demised premises/shop No.4 several times between the period January, 2015 to 29.06.2015 and even a legal notice dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure P5) to this effect was sent to the respondent. It is submitted that on 29.06.2015, the petitioners even vacated shop No.4 in presence of one Mr. Azad and requested the respondent to take keys of the said shop. However, the respondent refused to take the keys and instead filed present Execution Petition dated 06.07.2015 claiming that the petitioners had not vacated the demised premises as decreed and hence he was entitled not only for possession but also recovery of amount of Rs.3,93,141/- inclusive of interest.

6. On notice, the petitioners appeared before the learned Executing Court and gave a statement that they had vacated the tenanted premises on 29.06.2015 and that it was the respondent who had refused to take possession of shop No.4 in presence of aforementioned Mr. Azad and even it was the respondent who had refused to take keys of the said shop.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that throughout their intention has been bona fide which is borne out from the fact that on next date of hearing i.e. 07.10.2015, they had handed over keys of the demised premises in the Court itself to the respondent, which fact is evident from order dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure P11) passed by learned Executing Court.

8. It is further submitted that learned Executing Court without ascertaining the true facts and without granting any