Kundan Lal and Other vs Ram Devi

S.P. Goyal, J.—On a compromise between the parties, this Court passed the following order in the revision fled by the Respondent u/s 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949

In terms of the compromise recorded today, a decree for possession by ejectment, of the plot ABCD marked on the plan, Exhibit C/l, is passed in favour of the Petitioner provided she uses the plot for her business purposes within a period of one year and encloses it by a wall The tenant will also be at liberty to close the remaining area by a wall if he so desires. The landlady will have no right of access to the plot through the passage SRAX which will be exclusively used by the tenant. She will have access to the plot from, the street abutting on the line YDCQ. The tenant will continue paying the rent as fixed by the rent deed.

In case the landlady does not use the plot ABCD for her business purposes within one year from today, the tenant will be entitled to take out execution and recover possession of this plot from the landlady.

The Rent Controller is directed to go to the spot and demarcate the plot ABCD immediately but deliver its possession to the landlady after the expiry of three months .

As the Respondent failed to use the site in dispute for business premises within one year of the taking of its possession, the tenant instituted the execution proceedings in the court of Sub Judge Ist Class for restoration of the possession of the said plot The executing Court allowed the petition but in appeal its order was reversed by the Additional District Judge with the finding that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application Reliance for this was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mst. Parbati v. Jagmandar Dasi ILR (1961) P&H 846. Although the order under revision before the Division Bench was of the Rent Controller but it was specifically observed that the order was passed on the compromise enforceable by way of its execution whereas the order passed under the Act is executable as decree. So the application was rightly made by the tenant in the Civil Court for restoration of the possession in execution of the order based on the compromise between the parties. The learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, urges that the original tenant having died and the tenancy rights being not heritable, the Petitioners had no locus standi to claim restoration of the possession of the premises in dispute. This metter now stands concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Harish Chander v. Kirpa Ram (1985) 89 P.L.R. 164 and the tenancy rights have been held to be heritable.

This petition is consequently allowed with cost, the order of the Appellate Authority set aside and that of the executing Court restored.