Advocates:
['ARVIND SRIVASTAVA', 'HEMANT KUMAR', '', 'PRADEEP KUMAR KESHRI']

Court No. - 18

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 58 of 2022

Revisionist :- Dr. S.S Samriyar

Opposite Party :- Sheo Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Hemant Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Keshri

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the revision

applicant and learned counsel for the contesting respondent land

lord.

By means of present revision petition, petitioner has

challenged the order passed by the executing court vide order dated

15.4.2022 whereby objection of the petitioner filed under Section 47

of the CPC has come to be rejected.

Two fold of arguments have been advanced by learned counsel

for the revision applicant:

a. The Small Causes Court since accepted a compromise on

the basis of affidavit in decreeing the suit wherein new terms and

conditions of the tenancy between landlord and the tenant were set

up, , such a compromise decree would not be executable in absence

of any such agreement being registered; and

b. The court was not competent to entertain a suit and in the

event any such compromise lease got executed afresh to become a

part of decree then such decree would be declaratory only in nature

and will not therefore, be executable as a decree of ejectment.

Before coming to these legal questions on the basis of which

order passed by executing court under Section 47 of CPC has come

to be challenged in this revision petition, it would be necessary to go

into the facts of the case that led to the controversy between land

lord and tenant. The respondent land lord instituted a suit for

recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment registered as SCC Suit No.

67 of 2014 and monthly rent @ Rs. 10,000/- was claimed to be due

w.e.f. 1^st April, 2014 upto 31^st October, 2014 and damages for the

said period was also claimed @ Rs. 5000/-.

The plaint case was seriously disputed and objected to to by

the present petitioner by filing written statement, however,

relationship of land lord and tenant was not disputed. Subsequently,

an application was filed before the trial court that in view of

termination of tenancy in the year 2001 with expiry of 11 months

period, tenant was continued with the possession and such holding

over the premises in question gave him status of tenant by

sufferance. It was claimed to be a possession by way of tacit

consent by land lord even without paying the rent. While matter

remained pending after exchange of pleadings, parties to the suit

entered into compromise and that compromise was submitted

before the Judge Small Causes with number of conditions prescribed

therein.

Two basic conditions which led the land lord to initiate

proceeding for execution of the decree are reproduced hereunder:

“4. ;g fd izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh ekg fnlEcj 2020 rd gh izfrekg ls :0

15]000@& ij dk;e jgsxh A vFkkZr izfroknh dk fdjk;snkjh dh vof/k fnlEcj

2020 rd gh jgsxk A izfroknh (Mk0 ,l0 ,l0 lefj;kj) ekg tuojh 2021 ds

izFke lIrkg esa mDr fdjk;snkjh Hkou dks [kkyh djds mldk okLrfod dCtk n[ky

gj lwjr esa oknh f’ko dqekj fe+J dks ns nsxk A ;fn izfroknh mDr dfFkr fu;r

le; ij fdjk;snkjh Hkou dks [kky ugha fd;k x;k rc oknh dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk

fd og izfroknh ds fo:} btjk; (Execution) dh dk;Zokh djds izfroknh ds [kpsZ

ij mls csn[ky dj nsos A izfroknh Hkou [kkyh djrs oDr Hkou ds fdlh Hkh Hkkx

dks {kfrxzLr ugh djsxk A

5. ;g fd izfroknh ds fdjk;snkjh okyh Hkou fuofufeZr gS vkSj mldk fdjk;k

ekStqnk le; esa eq0 15]000@& gS ftl dkj.k iz’uxr Hkou ij jsUV dUVªksy ,DV

dk izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrk gS “

(emphasis added)

The suit was decreed on 27.2.2018 in terms of compromise

entered into between the parties with this above mutual consent

vide judgment and order dated 15.2.2018. Since terms of

compromise prescribed for vacating premises by the tenant

2 of 7

petitioner in the month January, 2021, and failed to do so, the land

lord filed an execution application for getting compromi