Ram Chander vs Devinder Kishore

H.S. Bedi, J.—The present petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Gurgaon, whereby the objections filed by the tenant J.D. with regard to the execution proceedings have been rejected.

The facts of the case are as under:-

The Rent Controller, Gurgaon, made an order on 27th May 1983 against the tenant ordering his ejectment. Against the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant went in appeal and on 27th May, 1987, made a statement that he would vacate the premises before 8th February, 1988 and on this statement, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 9th May 1985. As the tenant did not abide by his undertaking, execution was taken out by the landlord D.H. The tenant filed objections against the execution application but the same were dismissed by the Rent Controller on 13th June 1982 leading to the present petition.

The case put forth by the tenant JD was that the proceedings leading to the order of the Appellate Authority dated 9th May 1985 could not be looked into as the so-called compromise recorded which led to the dismissal of the appeal was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the said compromise had not been recorded in writing and signed by the parties, Reliance was also placed on a number of judgments of the Supreme Court as also of this Court. The Rent Controller, however, found that in the facts of the present case, the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code were not applicable as the matter had not been disposed of in terms of the compromise but it was on a statement of the counsel for the parties, that the appeal had been dismissed although time has been granted to the tenant to vacate the demised premises at a future date.

Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the correctness of this finding and has urged that a compromise has to be recorded in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC in order to make it binding.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties but find no merit in the petition. It will be seen that there was no compromise entered into between the parties and the appeal of the tenant had been got dismissed on a statement made by the counsel appearing for the tenant JD and time had been granted to vacate the demised premises. The provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code were therefore, not applicable to the case in hand.

For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed but with no order as to costs.