Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1464 (PNJ)

Sat Pal v. Firm Sat Pal Sanjeev Kumar

2003-10-22

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. The landlord-petitioners Sat Pal, Chatter Bhuj, Krishan Chand, Dharam Raj, Anil Kumar, Kalawati and Sunita filed an ejectment application on several grounds under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The Rent Controller in his order dated 5.9.1994 allowed the application and directed the ejectment of the tenants. The tenants filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and on the basis of a compromise entered into between the tenants and Dharam Raj, one of the landlords, which was signed by the counsel for the parties, the appeal was allowed and the ejectment application dismissed vide order dated 16.3.1996 and the tenants were allowed to continue as tenants on new terms and conditions as per the compromise. A review application was thereafter filed by some of the landlords other than Dharam Raj claiming that the aforesaid compromise was invalid qua them as they had not signed the same. This application too was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 16.4.1996 holding that a review application was not maintainable. The orders of the Appellate Authority dated 16.3.1996 and 16.4.1996 have been challenged in the present proceedings filed by the landlords other than Dharam Raj and Sunita, who have both been impleaded as respondents. 2. The primary grievance made by the petitioners is that the compromise had been entered into between Dharam Raj and the tenants and they being co-sharers and not having signed the aforesaid compromise, were not bound by the same, the more so as the compromise had not been recorded in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provided that a compromise was to be in writing and signed by the counsel for the parties. 3. It is conceded position that the compromise deed entered into before the Appellate Authority had not been signed by the landlords other than Dharam Raj respondent in the present proceedings. To my mind, therefore, the compromise could not be enforced qua the other landlords. In this view of the matter, the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 16.3.1996 and 16.4.1996 are clearly erroneous. They are accordingly quashed. As the Appellate Authority had not examined the matter on merits, this petition is remitted to the Appellate Authority for decision in accordance with law on the merits of the controversy raised between the parties. In this view of the matter, the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 16.3.1996 and 16.4.1996 are clearly erroneous. They are accordingly quashed. As the Appellate Authority had not examined the matter on merits, this petition is remitted to the Appellate Authority for decision in accordance with law on the merits of the controversy raised between the parties. The parties shall appear before the Appellate Authority, Jind on 18.12.2003. Dasti.