Shri Bhagat Ram Sulerhia vs Chattar Singh

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This civil revision has been preferred by the landlord against the order of the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal of the tenant and thereby dismissing his ejectment petition.

The ejectment of the respondent-tenant was sought from Rooms No. 4 and 5 shown in the plan attached to the plaint on the second floor of House No. 98, Sector 18-A. Chandigarh, on the ground that he is in arrears of rent with effect from l.10.1981; has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are nuisance to other tenants, neighbours and occupiers of the building in question.

The petition was contested by the tenant who pleaded and asserted that the tenanted premises comprise of a set of three rooms i. e. room No. 4, 5 and 6. The ground of nuisance was also controverted.

4 The learned Rent Controller, after appreciating the entire evidence on the record, found that the tenanted premises comprise of rooms No. 4, 5 and 6. The ground of tenant being guilty of such acts and conduct as are nuisance to other tenants was found against the tenant and, therefore, an order of ejectment was passed against him.

On appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller with regard to respondent- tenant being tenant in rooms No. 4, 5 and 6. However, the learned Appellate Authority set aside the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the tenant being guilty of creating nuisance for the neighbours and, therefore, the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside. The landlord has come up in revision challenging the order of the learned Appellate Authority.

Mr. Maluk Singh, Advocate., learned counsel for the landlord has raised only one contention i. e. that the parties to this litigation entered into a compromise off 30.11.1984 during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller and under the said compromise, the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises on or before 30.4.1985 and, therefore, the tenant is liable to be ejected on the basis of the said compromise. He further states that the compromise is binding between the parties and the tenant cannot be allowed to resile from the said agreement.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent admitted that though the compromise dated 30.11.1984 was arrived at between the parties but the same was never given effect to and, therefore, tenant cannot be ejected on the basis of the compromise. He further contended that no order of ejectment could be passed on the basis of the compromise in ejectment proceedings without proof of the grounds alleged in. the application.

After hearing the teamed counsel for the parties at length, I find no merit in this civil revision. I find from the record that one application dated 30.11.1984 in the shape of compromise signed by the landlord as well as by the tenant was filed on 19.1.1985 before the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh. The application is to the following effect :-

"That the above noted case is pending before this Hon''ble Court and is fixed for 15.12,1984. Both the parties have compromised as under-

"There are three cases pending between the parties, and both the parties have decided to dispose of all the eases by way of compromise. Shri Bhagat Ram Sukhria has agreed to withdraw two cases pending before Shri K. K. Chopra, S. J. I. C and B. C. Gupta, J. M. I. C, Chandigarh and Shri Chattar Singh has agreed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of three rooms, on 2nd floor of House No. 98, Sector 18- A, Chandigarh on or before 30:4.1985 and accordingly ejectment order will be passed by Shri'' Jagroop Singh, Rent Controller, Chandigarh, against him.

Sd (Bhagat Ram Sulehria) Landlord

Chandigarh,

Sd/- (Chattar Singh)'' Tenant

Dated: 30.11.1984.

The compromise is stated to have been arrived at between the parties on 30.11.1984, in which, apart from; other things, it has also been stated that the case is fixed for 15. 12 1984. However, perusal of order passed by the Rent Controller on 15.12.1984 shows that no such compromise was filed on that date. Rather, the tenant paid costs to the landlord which was imposed on the tenant on the previous date of hearing. The evidence of the tenant was also closed on 15.12.1984 and the case was adjourned to 5.1.1985. On 5.1.1985, the landlord did not produce any evidence in rebuttal, rather he prayed for one more date for evidence in rebuttal and for arguments. Consequently, the Rent Controller adjourned the case to 19.1.1985 for the said purpose. It was only on 19 1.1985 that the application/ compromise was filed by the landlord and on filing of this compromise, the tenant stated before the Kent Controller that certain conditions of the compromise have not been fulfilled by the landlord meaning thereby that he never accepted that order of ejectment be passed on the basis of the compromise. The order dated 19.t l985 also records that no evidence in rebuttal was present and one more date was prayed for remaining evidence and for arguments and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 21.1.1985 on which date the evidence was closed and arguments were heard and thereafter the order of ejectment on merits was passed.

From the various orders passed by the Rent Controller, as noticed above, one thing is evident that the compromise was never pressed by the landlord nor did he ask the Rent Controller to pass an order of ejectment on the basis of the compromise. Rather, he sought time for producing evidence and for arguing the case on merits. Therefore, the case was decided by the Rent Controller on merits. It was only before the learned Appellate Authority for the first time that the landlord pressed the compromise and prayed for passing ejectment order on the basis of the compromise. The learned Appellate Authority rightly found that the compromise was never pressed by the landlord and, therefore, declined to pass an order of ejectment on the basis of the compromise. At this stage it is also worth noticing that during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, landlord filed another ejectment petition i, e. No. 42 dated 26 3.1985 claiming ejectment of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent with effect from 1.5.1984 and also on the ground of nuisance etc. The said petition was dismissed on merits by Shri D. K Mongi, Rent Controller, Chandigarh on 26.11.1985. Filling of another ejectment application daring the pendency of the appeal clearly points out that the landlord himself never took the compromise dated 30.11.1984 seriously, otherwise he would have pressed the compromise instead of filing another ejectment petition.

Mr. Maluk Singh, Advocate, Seamed counsel for the petitioner made a pointed reference to Roshan Lal and Another Vs. Madan Lal and Others, and Suleman Noormohamed and Others Vs. Umarbhai Janubhai, . to contend that the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to pass an order of ejectment on the basis of the compromise. There is no dispute about this proposition of law It is true that the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to pass an order of ejectment of any premises on the basis of compromise but again that would depend upon as to whether there was enough material in the compromise itself or on the record to indicate that the order of ejectment to be passed on the basis of compromise is not in violation of the Act. However, this contention has no bearing for the decision of this case because I find that the compromise, which at one stage was arrived at" between the parties, was not pressed for reasons best known to the parties to the compromise and, therefore, no order of ejectment could be passed solely on the basis of this compromise.

No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Consequently, this Civil Revision is dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs.