Mst. Parbati vs Jagmandar Dass and Another

D. Falshaw, J.—This is a revision petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949 which has been referred to a larger Bench by my learned brother Dulat J. in the following circumstances.

The Petitioner Shrimati Parbati instituted a suit against Jagmandar Dass Respondent about a year ago u/s 13(3)(iii) of the Act for his ejectment from the premises in suit which consist of a shop on the ground that the premises were required for reconstruction. On the 20th of July, 1960, the parties made a joint statement which amounted to a compromise by which the tenant agreed that on the day on which an adjacent shop was vacated by another tenant he would vacate the shop in dispute and hand over possession to the landlord, and the landlord agreed to reconstruct the building within six months and restore possession of the rebuilt shop to the tenant. It further provided that if the landlord did not rebuild the shop within the prescribed period she would be liable to pay Rs. 200 as damages to the tenant and would in any case be bound to lease the shop to him when it was rebuilt. A decree on the basis of this compromise was passed the same day by the Rent Controller.

It appears, however, that the tenant thereafter became apprehensive regarding whether he would be able to enforce this compromise if the landlord failed to restore the shop to him, and on this account he filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, who also felt that the compromise in its present form might not be enforceable and on this account accepted the appeal and sent the case back to the Rent Controller either for disposal in accordance with law or for decision on the basis of an enforceable compromise between the parties and this order is challenged in the present revision petition.

The reason for these doubts regarding the enforceability of the compromise arrived at between the parties appears to have been the decision of J.L. Kapur, J., in Nathu Ram v. Pandit Ram Partap 53 P.L.R. 90 , which the same learned Judge followed in a later case Nanki Devi Vs. Ram Kishan Dass,

Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act deals with restoration of possession to a tenant who has been ejected on certain grounds in the event of the landlord''s failure to carry out the purposes on account of which the order of ejectment was obtained. The relevant portion reads--

or where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building under sub-paragraph (iii) of the aforesaid paragraph (a) puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly.

In the two decisions by Kapur, J., to which I have referred the properties concerned were shops and in both cases the tenant had submitted to a decree for ejectment on condition that the reconstructed shop should be leased to him, and the learned Judge was of the opinion that although an agreement of this kind might be otherwise enforceable, it was not open to the Controller, on an application by the tenant made after reconstruction of the building to restore possession to him, the reason for this view being that the provisions of Sub-section (4) were only applicable if the landlord did not reconstruct the building and did not apply if the building was in fact reconstructed. This appears to me to place an unduly narrow and restricted meaning on the words "put that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it" which would appear to me to be equally applicable whether a landlord did or did not carry out the proposed reconstruction on account of which the consent of the tenant to vacate the premises as in the present case was obtained, and I am unable to see any reason why the compromise arrived at between the parties in the present case should not be enforceable in execution, if need arises, and since it is the landlord who has come to this Court for the restoration of the decree based on the compromise it does not as a matter of fact seem likely that she will even attempt to back out of it when the time comes.

I would accordingly accept the revision petition and restore the decree of the Rent Controller based on the compromise between the parties who are left to bear their own costs.

S.S. Dulat, J.

I agree.