Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
SHACHEENDRA DWIVEDI
BAFATI - Appellant
Versus
RAM GOPAL AND OTHERS - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 938 Of 1986
Decided On : 05/11/1994
EVICTION SUIT - COMPROMISE DECREE - EXECUTION - VALIDITY - GROUNDS FOR EVICTION UNDER M. P. ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 - SECTION 12 - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO PASS DECREE - CONSENT OF TENANT - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
In an eviction suit, the parties arrived at a compromise, and a decree was passed accordingly. The tenant failed to vacate the premises within the stipulated time, and the landlord filed an execution petition. The tenant objected, arguing that the compromise decree was not executable as it was in contravention of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the compromise decree was valid and executable. It found that the landlord had prima facie shown grounds for eviction under Section 12 of the Act, and the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises in two installments. The court also found that the intention of the parties was not to create a fresh tenancy.
Issues: 1. Whether a compromise decree for eviction is executable if it is in contravention of Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961? 2. Whether the consent of the tenant can confer jurisdiction on the court to pass a valid decree for eviction in the absence of permissible grounds under the eviction law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A compromise decree for eviction is not necessarily void if the jurisdictional fact, i.e., the existence of one or more of the conditions mentioned in Section 12 of the Act, was shown to have existed when the court made the order. 2. The satisfaction of the court, which is a pre-requisite for the order of eviction, need not be by a judicial finding. If the court was satisfied that on the permissible grounds under the Eviction Law, the tenant could be evicted, there was no impediment in passing an executable decree. 3. If the landlord succeeds in proving the ground on which the eviction of the tenant is sought, the compromise becomes irrelevant. 4. For a compromise decree, it is essentially required that there must be an entitlement to the landlord for seeking the eviction of the tenant. If the provisions of the eviction law do not provide any such ground which is agreed in the case or if there is a prohibition for the eviction of the tenant under the law, the compromise will not confer jurisdiction on the court to pass a decree.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE present petition has been preferred under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. A brief narration of facts is necessary before dealing with the points of controversy.
( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for the eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the grounds of Section 12 (1) (c) (f) (k) (o) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The evidence was recorded in the suit, but the suit was, later on, compromised on 22-12-1972. A decree was drawn, in accordance with the terms of compromise.
( 3 ) UNDER the Compromise decree, the petitioner was required to deliver possession of a specified portion out of the suit premises by 31-12-1972 and the remaining portion was to be vacated within a period of five years from 1st of January, 1973.
( 4 ) ACTING upon the terms of the compromise decree, the petitioner had vacated the specified portion of the suit accommodation before 31-12-1972. However, the possession of the remaining accommodation remained with the petitioner, which was to be vacated after a period, of five years. But after the expiry of the period of five years, since the petitioner did not vacate the remaining portion of the suit premises, the execution was filed against him by respondent No. 1.
( 5 ) THE petitioner contested the execution on the ground that the compromise decree had not shown the existence of any ground under Section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter called the 'act') for the eviction of the petitioner and as such the execution proceedings could not proceed and the decree was not executable. The contention advanced by the petitioner did not find favour of the executing Court. The petitioner preferred a revision against the order of the executing Court, but that too was dismissed.
( 6 ) THE petitioner's counsel Shri K. K. Lahoti, has very forcefully contended that the decree passed on compromise is unexecutable as it is in contravention of Section 12 of the Act. The Court below did not find that any ground under Section 12 (1) of the Act had existed, and therefore, no jurisdiction was vested in the trial Court for passing a valid decree of eviction on compromise. It was also contended by the petitioner's counsel, though feebly, that the compromise created a fresh tenancy, and the petitioner in execution of the compromise decree could not be evicted.
( 7 ) REFUSING the allegations, the respondent's counsel Shri A. M. Naik, very confidently contended that the two Courts below have rightly rejected the objection raised by the petitioner. Much stress was laid by the respondents's counsel on the point that the decree was executable as the Courts below had examined all the relevant facts and circumstances and had taken into account also the pleadings of the parties. The decree was neither in violation nor in contradiction to the provision of the Act. The compromise decree also could not be alleged to have the effect of creating a fresh tenancy as that was not the intention of the parties, and therefore, the dismissal of the petition was prayed by the respondents.
( 8 ) THIS petition presents a highly tortunous nature of litigation between the landlord and the tenant. The suit for eviction was filed by respondent No. I against the petitioner in the year 1971 and a decree of compromise was passed on 22-12-1972. The petitioner under the decree was required to deliver the possession of the remaining portion of suit accommodation within five years from 1-1-1973. The execution was filed in the year 1978 by the respondent No. I against the petitioner and even after the lapse about 16 years, the respondent is waiting for the fortunate day when he gets the possession of the remaining part from the petitioner even after the petitioner had compromised the suit about 21 years back.
( 9 ) IN an eviction suit, when the parties arrive at compromise, the trial Court is required to see that the compromise is not in violation of the provisions o
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
