Back
Allahbad High Court
K.C.AGARWAL
Ashok Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Kanhiaya Lal - Respondent
Decided On : 03/19/1974
LANDLORD TENANT - EVICTION - COMPROMISE DECREE - VALIDITY - U.P. (TEMPORARY CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1947, SECTION 3 - ADMISSION OF SUB-LETTING - SATISFACTION OF COURT - MATERIAL ON RECORD.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-decree-holder filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, and damages against the judgment-debtor-appellants on the ground of illegal subletting. The judgment-debtors contested the suit, but later entered into a compromise with the decree-holder, agreeing to pay rent at a higher rate and to vacate the premises if they failed to comply with the terms of the compromise. The judgment-debtors failed to comply with the terms of the compromise, and the decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree. The judgment-debtors objected, arguing that a new tenancy had come into existence as a result of the compromise and that they could not be evicted in pursuance of the original decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the compromise decree was valid and that the judgment-debtors were liable to eviction. The court found that the judgment-debtors had admitted to the ground of sub-letting in the compromise decree and that there was sufficient material on record to satisfy the court that the ground of sub-letting existed. The court also held that the judgment-debtors had not complied with the terms of the compromise and that they were therefore liable to eviction.
Issues: 1. Whether the compromise decree was valid. 2. Whether the judgment-debtors were liable to eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the compromise decree was valid because there was sufficient material on record to satisfy the court that the ground of sub-letting existed. The court found that the judgment-debtors had admitted to the ground of sub-letting in the compromise decree and that there was other evidence on record to support the finding of sub-letting. 2. The court held that the judgment-debtors were liable to eviction because they had not complied with the terms of the compromise decree. The court found that the judgment-debtors had failed to pay the rent at the higher rate and that they had failed to vacate the premises.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower court.
JUDGMENT :- This is a judgement-debtor's execution second appeal against the judgement and decree of the First Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, rejecting the objections under Section 47, C.P.C. filed by the judgement-debtor-appellants. The plaintiff decree-holder (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder) filed suit No. 106 of 1970 for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the judgement-debtor-appellants (hereinafter referred to as judgement-debtors) on the ground that Ashok Kumar, judgement-debtor No. 1 was the tenant of the premises of a shop on the monthly rent of Rs. 73. He illegally sublet the said shop to the judgement-debtor-appellant No. 1. It was alleged that since the said subletting was illegal, therefore, these two judgement-debtors were liable to eviction. The suit was contested by the judgement-debtors, by means of a joint written statement it was alleged that initially the shop had been let out to Ashok Kumar and Kailash Chand, Kailash Chand left the partnership business, which was carried on in the premises and thereafter judgement-debtor Mahipal started doing it in partnership with Ashok Kumar, the other judgement-debtor. According to the case further taken in the written statement it was pleaded by judgement-debtors that this taking of Mahipal in partnership by Ashok Kumar was in the knowledge of decree-holders. Accordingly, the decree-holder could not get the eviction on the basis of the said alleged sub-letting.
2. The trial court, thereafter, recorded the statements of the parties under Order X. Rule 2, C.P.C. Mahipal in this statement could not give any satisfactory explanation relating to his possession in the property. He only asserted that he was in possession of some of the receipts executed in the joint names of himself and Ashok Kumar. Kanhaiya Lal. decree-holder denied giving of any receipt in the names of Ashok Kumar and Mahipal. It is correct that the judgement-debtors had denied the allegations of illegal sub-letting as was alleged by the decree-holder but after the statement were recorded it was clear that they did not; have any substantial defence effectively repelling the case of the decree-holders relating to sub-letting. Having so found the judgement-debtors entered into a compromise with the decree-holders. The compromise was as follows :-
"Shriman Ji,
Sewa me nivedan hai ki baham pharikain tasflya ho gaya hai ki dawa badigarn waste dakhal wa bakaya kiraya wa waslat wasarh 75/- pachattar rupai mahwar ke hisab tayon dakhal decree kar diya Jawe. Lekin agar pratiwadigarn bakaya kiraya. 115/- rupiya mutdaviya wa waslat 17-1-70 se 16-7-71 tak wasarah Rs. 75/- mahwar vani kul 1462-50 paise do barakar ki chamahi kisto me (yarni 731-25 paise 16-1-72 tak wa 731.50 paise 15-7-72 tak ada kar denga, aur 16-7-72 se ainda kiraya 100/- rupiya mahawar mah wa mah barshar ada karte rehenge to pratiwadigarn dono kirayedaran mane jayenge aur decree ada wa bebak samjhi jayegi aur ayisi surat me wadigarn dakhal bhi nahi lenge. Agar pratiwadi in bato uprokt me se kishi bhi bat ko poora karne me kami karenge to decreedaran ko fauran decree zari karane ka adhikar ho jayege aur jo riyayete upar likhi gai hai wah bhi khatam samjhi jawegi. Kharcha farikain apna 2 swam bardast karenge.
Kanhaiya Lal wa Mahabir Prasad.
Wadigarn.
Shri Ashok Kumar wa Mahipal,
Pratiwadigarn.
Dt : 16-7-1971."
3. In the end it was provided that in case the judgement-debtors complied with all the conditions of the compromise regularly and properly, in that event the judgement-debtors would not be ejected. The judgement-debtors deposited Rs. 500 in all upto 23rd of December, 1971. They did not admittedly either pay or deposit the first six monthly instalment of Rupees 73l/25 p. payable by them on 15th of January, 1972. Consequently the decree-holder filed the application for execution on 11-2-1972 in the executing court. The judgement-debtors filed an objection under Section 47 C.P.C. contesting the execution. They al
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
