Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Anil Bhasin – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Agarwal – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 87 of 2019
Decided On : 09-05-2024
COMPROMISE - TENANCY DISPUTE - The court addressed a tenancy dispute where the parties reached a mutual compromise regarding the possession of a shop. The court emphasized the importance of voluntary agreements between parties and modified the previous judgment to reflect the terms of the compromise, ensuring both parties adhered to their obligations without coercion.
Fact of the Case:
A SCC Suit was filed by Ashok Kumar Agarwal against Anil Bhasin, challenging a decree from 09.07.2019 regarding tenancy of a shop. The parties later filed a compromise application to settle their disputes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both parties had settled their disputes amicably and voluntarily, confirming the terms of the compromise application.
Issues: Whether the compromise reached by the parties was valid and enforceable, and how it would affect the previous judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a compromise between parties, made without coercion, is valid and should be honored, modifying the previous decree to align with the agreed terms.
Result: The court decided to dispose of the civil revision in accordance with the terms of the compromise, modifying the earlier judgment and decree.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
1. A SCC Suit (No. 16 of 2017) was filed by the respondent-Ashok Kumar Agarwal against the revisionist-defendant Anil Bhasin. The said suit has been decreed on 09.07.2019, passed by learned Judge, Small Cause Court/Ist Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital. The revisionist-defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2019.
2. Heard Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Manoj Sah (through video conferencing), learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The parties have filed a Compromise Application (Misc. Compromise Application No. 10635 of 2024) along with their affidavits.
4. Both the parties have settled their disputes on the following terms:
(ii) The revisionist shall not sublet the same and shall not allow the same to be occupied by any other person during the said period. The revisionist shall not cause any damage or alteration in the shop in question during the aforesaid period.
(iii) The revisionist has claimed to have paid a sum of Rupees 1,00,000/- as premium to the mother of the respondent at the time of initiation of tenancy and has further claimed that he has spent a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- in the repair and maintenance of the shop. Without admitting the payment of any such amount or any such expenditure being done by the revisionist, the respondent has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the revisionist in lieu of vacating the shop in question and in lieu of any alleged and the above alleged monetary claim of the revisionist.
(iv) Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. Two lakh (2,00,000/-), the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the revisionist within one month of the disposal of the present revision and shall pay the balance amount of 1,00,000/- at the time of handing over of the possession of the shop in question by the revisionist to the respondent. The payment shall be made through bank transaction/demand draft only.
(v) The revisionist shall pay the entire arrears of rent, adjusting the amount, if any, already paid or deposited by the revisionist. The revisionist shall continue to pay use and occupation charges for the aforesaid period till 02.11.2024 by 7th day of each month.
(vi) Both the parties shall abide by the aforesaid terms and will get the present revision being disposed of in terms of the present compromise.”
5. Both the parties submitted that the compromise application has been filed along with affidavits of the parties with their free will and without any pressure.
6. The Compromise Application is verified.
7. With the consent of both the parties, present Civil Revision (CLR No. 87 of 2019) is decided on the terms of the said compromise.
8. Judgment and decree dated 09.07.2019, passed by learned Trial Court, is modified accordingly.
9. Compromise Application will form part of the decree.
10. Registry to draw the decree.
A voluntary compromise between parties in a tenancy dispute is enforceable and can modify previous court judgments.
Enforcement of eviction decree through a lawful compromise entered into by the parties.
The court clarified that a tenant cannot benefit from their own failure to pay stamp duty on an agreement, affirming the validity of the agreement presented by the revisionist.
No eviction can be ordered unless ground seeking eviction is made out, even if parties had entered into a compromise and that the invalidity on that count can even be raised in execution.
A compromise decree in such cases where eviction is sought under Rent Control Legislation, is capable of execution or not, will depend on the facts of each individual case.
The burden of proof lies with the tenant to establish payment of arrears of rent, and failure to deposit rent during the pendency of the Suit can lead to eviction.
The court has the discretion to allow the condonation of delay in filing a revision and may impose conditions for the defendants to vacate the property by a specified date, subject to the regular pay....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the landlord-tenant relationship and complying with statutory provisions regarding rent payment and termination of tenancy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with the legal provisions regarding rent payment and termination of tenancy is essential, and the court has the discretion to grant....
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
