Consent orders must be interpreted strictly according to the agreed terms, and do not confer rights not explicitly stated.

J U D G M E N T

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. What was once a dispute between landlord and tenant for the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute ended into a consent order way back in the year 1979. Unfortunately, the said consent order gave rise to a bitter civil dispute between the parties, which has now landed in this Court after the suit was dismissed by the court of first instance which judgment and order was upheld by the First Appellate Court. However, the decree so passed was reversed by the High Court in Second Appeal. This is how the parties are now before this Court.

2. Late Bhawani Parshad alias Bhagati Parshad (now represented by his legal representatives) was the landlord and late Charan Dass (now represented by his legal representatives) was a tenant in the premises consisting of a house of two rooms/godown comprised in Khasra No.1383 situate in Mohalla Charpat, Church Road, Chamba Town.

3. The landlord applied under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 1 for the eviction of the tenant, late Charan Dass, on the ground that the house in question was in a dilapidated condition which required demolition and reconstruction. The suit was initially contested by the tenant wherein issues were framed, out of which two issues were relevant and important; as to whether the house in dispute is in a dilapidated condition, unfit for habitation and requires demolition and reconstruction; and whether the landlord requires the said house for his bona fide personal use.

3A. In the said suit on one of the dates fixed i.e. 05.09.1979, the landlord appeared in court and stated that there has been a settlement between the parties and the tenant has accepted to deposit a sum of Rs.12,500/- before 1 hereinafter referred to as “the Act”

15.12.1979 in the court. In the event the amount is so deposited on or before the aforesaid date, the application of the landlord shall be deemed to be dismissed; otherwise, on failing to do so, the landlord’s application would be deemed to be allowed. The tenant also appeared before the court on the said date and accepted the settlement. He stated that in case he fails to deposit the aforesaid amount on or before the date fixed, he shall vacate the house/godown, and in the event of him depositing the same, the application of the landlord shall be deemed to be dismissed.

4. In terms of the aforesaid settlement, as per the statement of both the landlord and tenant, the Court of Rent Controller, on the very same day, i.e. 05.09.1979 passed an order allowing the application of the landlord conditionally; that if the tenant fails to deposit the aforesaid sum of Rs.12,500/- in court in the name of the landlord on or before 15.12.1979, the application would be deemed to be allowed, and the tenant would deliver vacant possession of the house immediately, otherwise, if the tenant deposits the amount within the stipulated period, the application of the landlord would be deemed to be dismissed.

5. The tenant, in pursuance of the above consent order dated 05.09.1979, deposited a sum of Rs.12,500/- in the Chamba Treasury on 06.09.1979, i.e., on the very next day. Thus, the application of the landlord under Section 14 of the Act came to be dismissed in terms of the consent order.

6. The landlord, however, challenged the aforesaid order by means of Civil Revision No.168/79 before the High Court which was dismissed on 07.12.1984, observing that in case the landlord was aggrieved by the dismissal of his application under Section 14 of the Act, the appropriate remedy available to him was to file an appeal under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act.

7. It has come on record that the Special Leave Petition of the landlord against the above order of the High Court also stood dismissed, though, nothing in detail to that effect has been brought on record. In short, the consent order dated 05.09.1979 between the landlord and the tenant became final and conclusive.

8. Despite the fact that there was no evictio