Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Shri Nipun Singh for the revisionist and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh for the opposite party.

2. The instant revision arises out of an execution case, filed for execution of a compromise decree passed in an SCC Suit for arrears of rent and eviction.

3. The execution case has been dismissed by the execution Court holding it to be not maintainable.

4. The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision briefly stated are that the revisionist filed SCC Suit No. 10 of 2001 for arrears of rent and ejectment against the opposite party. In this suit, a compromise was filed on 18.10.2004. The suit was decided the same day on the basis of the compromise, which was made part of the decree.

5. According to the compromise, advance yearly rent was to be paid between the 1st to 30th November of each year and that the tenant had paid the rent till 31.10.2004 @ Rs. 17,750/- inclusive all taxes. He had also paid advance from 1.11.2004 to 31.10.2005 @ Rs. 17,750/- + Rs. 750/- i.e. Rs. 18,500/-, since, the rent was to be enhanced to Rs. 750/- per year. The rent for the next year would be Rs. 19,250/-. The tenant upon enhancing the rent by Rs. 750/- each succeeding year and on depositing the advance rent in Nov each year could retain possession till he wished.

6. It was also agreed that any enhancement in house and water tax would be borne by the parties, inasmuch as enhancement in house tax would be borne by the plaintiff-landlord while enhancement in water tax would be borne by the defendant. It was also provided that in case of default, the land lord was liable to evict the tenant.

7. Alleging that the tenant had failed to deposit the rent for 2010-11 between 1.11.2010 ad 30.11.2010, as required under the compromise, Execution Case No. 1 of 2011 was filed on 19.1.2011 praying for eviction of the tenant, in terms of the compromise decree.

8. The execution case was contested by the tenant landlord on the ground that under the compromise, the landlord was not entitled to possession as no decree for possession had been passed. The decree as regards, enhancement of rent, in future, was declaratory in nature. As regards, the rights of the parties regarding payment and acceptance of future rent, the compromise decree amounted to a fresh lease agreement and that eviction could be ordered only in a fresh suit.

9. It was also alleged that although, the rent was tendered during the period specified, namely, 1st to 30th November 2010, the landlord avoided accepting it. In any case, the advance rent alongwith interest thereon till 31.1.2011 has been duly deposited on the first date of hearing in the execution case.

10. The Court below found that the compromise decree passed was beyond the scope of the suit itself. Therefore, the same could not be executed and that any violation of the compromise decree provided the landlord a fresh cause of action.

11. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the only point for determination in this revision is whether the compromise decree could be executed by means of an execution case or whether it merely gave a right to the landlord to initiate fresh proceedings for ejectment, in case of violation of the terms of the compromise.

12. The case of the landlord revisionist, of course, is that the compromise decree was duly executable and in failing to-do-so, the executing Court has committed patent illegality.

13. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the following judgements -

1. Rashid Ahmad (deceased by LRs) v. The Munsif Muzaffarnagar and others, 1985 ALL LJ 108.

In this case, the compromise related to payment of the arrears of rent by a particular date, failing which the suit would stand decreed. It thus related the rent, already due. In the case at hand the compromise related to the future rent. The case cited is therefore, distinguishable.

2. Shivshankar Gurgar v. Dilip, 2014 (2) SCC 465.

In this case, the Apex Court was deali