LexROSHAN LAL versus MADAN LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
878
ROSHAN LAL
v.
MADAN LAL
September 18, 1975
[A. ALAGIRrSWAMl, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Madhya Pr{.\desh Accon1111odatio11 Co111rol Act 1961-Sec. 12(1)(6)-Com-
promise; decree in .a rent act-suit, wheiher a nullity-C.P.C. 0. 23 ru:e 3.
1"he .respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction against the appellant tenant
on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and that he has no other
reasonably suitable accommodation of his own which is one of the grounds of
eviction under the Madhya Pradush Accommodation Control Act.
The appel·
]ant filed a Written Statement denying the claim oi' the respondent.
After some
evidence was recorded the parties entered into a con1promise and filed it in the
Court. The compromise deed mentioned that "due to the necessity of the
plaintiffs for their own business-opening grocery shop, \he decree for eject-
ment may be granted to them against the defendant''. The Trial Court passed
a decree in tern1s of the com.promise after coming to the conclusion that the
compromise was legal.
The appe11ant was given 3 years' time to vacate the
premises ·under the compromise. On the appellanfs failure to vacate after
the expiry of three years, the respondent filed Execution Application. The
appellant objected to the execution on the ground that the cornpromise decree
was void and inexecutable as being against the provisions of the Act.
1 The Execution Court accepted the· appellant's objection and dismissed t1re
Execution Case.
The Dis-trict Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the respon-
dent. The High Court allowing the Second :rvtiscellaneous Appeal came to the
concJusion that the decree was not a nullity and that it was executable.
In an appeal by Special Leave the Appellant ·contended that the decre-e was
nullity since the Court was not satisfied that the eviction was in accordance
whh the provisions Of the Act. The counsel further contended that even if
what is stated in the· compromise deed might be accepted as adm·ission, the
admission is only about the bono fule requirement and that there is no admi53ivn
about the landlord not having any other suitable ac-commodation.
HELD : dismissing the appeal :
A
c
I>
E.
1. In order to get a decree or order for ev.iction against a tenant wh08e
tenancy is governed by any Rent Restriction or Eviction Control
Act
the
F
Suitor must make out a case. for eviction in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. 'When the suit is contested the issue ~oes to trial. 'The Court passes
a decree for eviction only if it is satisfied on eVIdence that a ground for passing;
snch a decree in accordance with the requirement of the Statute has
been
established. Even when the trial proceeds ex-parte, this is so.
If, however,
parties choose to enter into a compromise due to uny reason such as to avoid
the risk of protracted litigation, expenses. it is open to then1 to do so.
The
Court can pass a decree on the basis of the compromise. In such a situation
G.
the only thing to be ieen is whether the compromise is in violation of the
requirement of the law. In other words, parties cannot be permitted to have
a tenant's eviction merely by agreement without anything more. The compro-
mise must indicate either on its face or in the background of other materials
in the case that the tenant expressly or impliedly is agreeing to suffer a decree
for eviction because the landlord, in the circumstances, is entitled to have mcll
a decree under the law. The case of K. K. Chari v. Po( M. Se.vhadri, followed.
[882-A-D]
2. It is too late in the day to contend that the provisions of order 23 rule
3 of the Code of Ci'vil Procedure cannot ~pply to eviction suits governed by
the special statutes.
A compromise of suit ls permissible under the said pro-
visions of law.
[882-E-Fl
H
·~
/(
' "
•
•
•
A
.B
c
D
ROSHAN LAL v. MADAN LAL (Untwalh1 J.)
87!)
3. If the compromi~ for the eviction of the tenant is found en the~ facts
of a particular case to be in violation of a Rent Control Act, the Court would
refuse to record the cempromise as ,U would not l?e a lawful agreement. lf
the Court is satisfied on con!ideration of the terms of the compromise and if
necessary by comidering them in the context! of the pleadings and other materials
in the case· that the agreement is lawful as in any other suit so in an eviction
suit the court is bound to record the compromise and pas91 a decree in accord-
ance therewith. [8Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.