Back
1992 Supreme(MP) 878
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. C. LAHOTI
RAM SAHAI - Appellant
Versus
JAI PRAKASH - Respondents
Second Appeal 108 Of 1991
Decided On : 12/11/1992
AKHIL SHRIVASTAVA, J.P.SHRIVASTAVA, PRABHU DAYAL AGRAWAL, R.A.RAMAN, VIDISHA
A compromise agreement entered into by parties in a landlord-tenant dispute is valid and binding on the parties, and the tenant is bound by his admission of liability for arrears of rent made during the compromise negotiations.
Headnote:
LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE - EJECTMENT SUIT - COMPROMISE AGREEMENT - ADMISSION OF LIABILITY - SECTION 20 OF EVIDENCE ACT - BINDING EFFECT - MAINTAINABILITY OF APPEAL - SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW - TECHNICAL PLEAS - JUSTICE ORIENTED APPROACH.
Fact of the Case:
A landlord filed an ejectment suit against his tenant, alleging that the tenant had sublet the premises to his brothers without his permission and had withheld rent. The tenant contested the suit, denying the allegations and claiming that the rent was excessive. During the trial, the parties agreed to a compromise, whereby the tenant would vacate the premises within a month and a half and the landlord would decide the issue of arrears of rent as a sole arbitrator. The trial court recorded the compromise and passed a decree for ejectment. The tenant appealed, challenging the maintainability of the appeal and the validity of the compromise agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appeal was maintainable and that the compromise agreement was valid and binding on the tenant. The court found that the tenant had abandoned his defence to the ejectment suit and had agreed to vacate the premises. The court also found that the tenant had admitted his liability for arrears of rent by agreeing to abide by the landlord's decision as a sole arbitrator. The court further held that the landlord was entitled to recover rent at the agreed rate until the tenant had successfully obtained a reduction in rent from the Rent Controlling Authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal was maintainable. 2. Whether the compromise agreement was valid and binding on the tenant. 3. Whether the landlord was entitled to recover rent at the agreed rate until the tenant had successfully obtained a reduction in rent from the Rent Controlling Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appeal was maintainable because the tenant had raised substantial questions of law, including the maintainability of the appeal and the validity of the compromise agreement. 2. The court held that the compromise agreement was valid and binding on the tenant because the tenant had voluntarily agreed to it in the presence of the court. The court also found that the tenant had admitted his liability for arrears of rent by agreeing to abide by the landlord's decision as a sole arbitrator. 3. The court held that the landlord was entitled to recover rent at the agreed rate until the tenant had successfully obtained a reduction in rent from the Rent Controlling Authority.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree for ejectment.
( 1 ) PECULIAR facts have given rise to this appeal. It is a classical example of petty landlord-tenant litigation being dragged on for unreasonable length of time, thanks to procedural tools available to unscrupulous litigants and errors of procedure unwittingly committed in law Courts.
( 2 ) THE suit accommodation is residential held by the tenant/defendant/appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/ -. The plaintiff/respondent is a practising lawyer. It appears that the defendant/appellant No. 1 was a clerk in the office of the plaintiff's father, who too is an Advocate. Presumably this close affinity, and probably the convenience of the Advocate father and son, persuaded them in permitting their clerk occupying their premises as a tenant some time in the year 1974-75. According to the defendant No. 1, he snapped his office relationship with the plaintiff w. e. f. 30-9-1976. The plaintiff must have expected the defendant No. 1 to vacate the premises simultaneously with his dissociating himself with the plaintiff because that was the prime consideration behind creation of tenancy. However, the erstwhile clerk of the plaintiff did not turn out to be that straight, simple and obliging gentleman as the plaintiff had expected of him. The tenant discontinued his residence in the suit premises but instead at restoring back the possession to the plaintiff, passed it on the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, none else than real brothers of the tenant. The defendant No. 1 also withheld payment of rent to the landlord with the result that the suit for ejectment came to be filed on 15-3-1978 after service of demand-cum-quit notice seeking relief on the grounds available under clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (1) of S. 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act" for short ).
( 3 ) THE defendant No. 1, and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, filed separate written statements, taking similar pleas. The defendants proved to be disgruntled foes, as is apparent from the manner of drafting the written statements, the language employed therein, the pleas projected and the subsequent conduct of theirs at the trial. Ownership of the plaintiff in the premises was challenged, Insinuations were made stating that the plaintiff's father was indulging in unethical practice and because of the protest raised by the defendant No. 1- the clerk, the advocate-master had threatened him with lesson being taught with the assistance of his clients, the Police, the Court and the society. The written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 was further amended so as to introduce para 21 therein, outwardly enlarging the plea of challenge to the title of the plaintiff, but in reality narrating the dispute which had taken place between the advocate father and son at family partition between them. Several revision petitions were preferred against interlocutory orders and on several occasions this matter had come up to this Court earlier too. All this contributed to long pendency of the case before the trial Court and it could be disposed of only on 2-2-1987 after a long pendency of about 9 years.
( 4 ) THE proceedings before the lower appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the defendants, is the story of defendants similar conduct and dilatory tactics retold. Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution were preferred to this Court during the pendency of the appeal. Adjournments were prayed by filing numberless applications exhausting all such available provisions of the Civil P. C. on which the tenant could have laid hand. At one stage, application u/s. 340, Cr. P. C. was filed by the clerk defendant, seeking prosecution of his erstwhile employer, charging him with having filed a false affidavit in the Court. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed confirming the decree of the trial Court.
( 5 ) ON 6-5-1991, this appeal was filed. Another Bench of this Court took note of the landlord's sufferance and showed indulgence by directing early hear
