LexLAKSHMI NARAYANAN versus S.S. PANDIAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A LAKSHMI NARAYANAN v. S.S. PANDIAN SEPTEMBER 4, 2000 B [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] Rent and Eviction Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act 1960--Civil Procedure C Code 1908-0rder 21 Rule 2, Sec.47-Decree of eviction-Compromise by parties pending execution~Part satisfaction recorded-Fresh lease in respect of part of the premises for 3 years-Part of the decree to be executed after 3 years-Failure of tenant to vacate-Fresh execution filed by Appellant- dismissed-Revision Petition dismissed-Whether the lease amounts to a D fresh lease-Held, No-Since the compromise has not been recorded by executing court, it does not have the effect of extinguishing the decree. The appellant filed eviction petition under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction of the respondent, which was decreed ex parte. The appellant filed an application for execution of the ex E parte decree. During the pendency of the execution proceedings the parties entered into a compromise outside the court and the respondent surrendered possession of a portion of the building and for the rest of the suit premises, the parties entered into an agreement of lease for three years, with the same rate of rent. The compromise, inter a/ia, provided that if the respondent fails F to vacate the premises on the expiry of the said period, the appellant will be entitled to have the decree executed against him and get possession of the same. On filing the memo of compromise in the court, the Execution Petition was dismissed as 'not pressed'. On the respondent failing to vacate the property after the expiry of 3 G years, the appellant filed a fresh Petition for execution of the decree for recovery of possession of the premises and the executing court ordered delivery of possession. The respondent filed an application for recalling the order of delivery of possession and for dismissal of the Execution Petition. The appellant also filed an application for permission to amend the description H of the property in the execution petition. The executing court by a common 72 ... • .. LAKSHMI NARA YANAN v. S.S. PANDIAN order dismissed the appellant's petition and allowed the respondent's petition .. A The appellant filed two Revision Petitions in the High Court challenging the validity of the said common order. The High Court dismissed the revision petitions. In appeal to this Court, the appellant, contended that the compromise between the parties did not extinguish the decree itself, that it merely postponed the execution of the decree and as the respondent did not vacate the premises on the expiry of three years granted to him, the appellant is entitled B to have the decree executed and recover possession of the premises, and that as the compromise/adjustment of the decree was not recorded by the executing court in pursuance of Rule 3 of Order 21, the court cannot recognise the same and hold that the decree was extinguished in proceeding under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent, contended that the C compromise and execution of a new lease deed for three years, during the pendency of the execution proceedings, extinguished the decree; that as the respondent would be enjoying the protection of the Rent Act, he was not liable to be evicted under the existing decree, that Order 21 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. was enacted for the benefit of a decree holder and that apart no mode of recording adjustment of the decree by the court having been prescribed under D the C.P.C., the order of the court.dismissing the Execution Petition on filing of the memo of compromise would amount to recording adjustment of the decree within the meaning of Rule 2 of Order 21 of the C.P.C., and, therefore, the executing court rightly took note of the compromise and dismissed the Execution Petition. Allowing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1. In a case where parties compromise after the decree had been passed, the effect of the compromise on the executability of the decree depends upon the intention of the parties, which is a mixed q~estion of law and fact F and has to be determined by the executing court on an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. On interpretation of the decree and the compromise in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. If on such determination it is gathered that the intention of the parties is to extinguish the decree and e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.