SHIVSHANKAR GURGAR versus DILIP

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 03-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
a 
[2014) 1 S.C.R. 18 
SHIVSHANKAR GURGAR 
v. 
DILIP 
(Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2014) 
JANUARY 3, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DES,AI AND 
J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.1 
C 
MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL 
ACT, 1961: 
ss.12(1)(a) and 13 - Suit for eviction and arrears of rent 
- Compromise decree -
Tenant to deposit arrears of rent 
within stipulated period failing which landlord would be entitled 
D to possession - Not complied with by tenant - Execution -
Executing courl granting time to tenant to deposit rent and on 
his doing so, dismissing execution application -
Held: s. 13 
indicates that payment or deposit of rent into court by 
judgment debtor (tenant) is contemplated only during the 
E pendency of suit for eviction or an appeal (by the tenant) 
against a decree or order of eviction -
It has no application 
to the execution - Further, power of courl to enlarge time uls. 
148 CPC can be exercised only in a case where period is 
granted by courl for doing any act prescribed by Code - It has 
F no application where period is stipulated by agreement 
/)etween parlies -
Order of executing courl granting time to 
tenant to deposit rent being a nullity, failure of landlord to 
Challenge it would not deny him the right to recover 
possession - Execution petition allowed -
Code of Civil 
G Procedure, 1908 -
s. 148 - Practice and procedure. 
DECREE: 
Compromise decree - Tenant to deposit arrears of rent 
H 
18 
SHIVSHANKAR GURGAR v. DILIP 
19 
within stipulated tirqe and on his failure to do so, landlord 
A 
entitled to recover possession -
Execution of decree -
Executing court holding the decree as contrary to provisions 
of the Act and granting the tenant time to deposit arrears of 
rent and on his doing so, dismissing the execution application 
- Held: Such an order amounts to modification of decree and s 
is without jurisdiction on the part of executing court, therefore, 
a nullity -
Executing court cannot go beyond the decree -
It has no jurisdiction to modify a decree ;....__ It must execute 
the decree as it is -Such a void order can create neither 
legal rights .nor obligations -
Madhya Pradesh c 
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - ss. 12(1) (a) and 13. 
In a suit uls 12(1 )(a) of the Madhya Pradesh 
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction and arrears 
of rent, a compromise decree was passed to the effect 
that the respondent-tenant would pay the arrears within 
D 
6 months failing which the appellant-landlord would be 
entitled to possession. In execution proceedings, the 
executing court allowed the tenant .15 days time to 
deposit the amount and on such deposit dismissed the 
execution application. The executing court further held 
E 
that in view of s. 13(1 )(a) of the Act the compromise 
decree insofar as it provided for eviction of the 
respondent in the event of his failure to make the deposit 
of arrears within the stipulated time was void. The High 
Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the landlord-
F 
appellant on three grounds: (i) that the appellant need not 
have entered into a compromise which led to the decree; 
(ii) When the execution petition was filed by the appellant 
and the executing court granted 15 days time to the 
respondent to pay the balance of the arrears of rent and 
G 
since the appellant did not choose to challenge the said 
order, it implied that the appellant acquiesced in the said 
order, therefore, the appellant-landlord was not entitled 
for the recovery of the possession of his property; and 
(iii) in view of the fact that the respondent eventually 
H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A deposited the arrears of rent his possession was required 
to be protected in view of ss.12(3) and 13(5) of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. All the reasons given by the High Court are 
8 unsustainable in law. The High Court did not examine the 
correctness of the conclusion of the executing court that 
the compromise decree insofar as it pertained to the 
eviction of the respondent in the event of his failure to 
deposit the arrears of rent within time stipulated in the 
C compromise decree is inconsistent with the provisions of 
the Act and, therefore, void. [para 12 and 14] [27-D; 28-A] 
1.2. The reasons which compelled the appellant to 
enter the compromise are irrelevant for the issue at hand. 
o The respondent-judgment debtor cannot flout the 
compromise decree with impunity on the ground that his 
opponent entered the compromise in view of some 
ser

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.