Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 146 (AP)

Dilshad Hussain v. Alloju Mallikarjun Rao

2008-02-22

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
ORDER: The respondent is the owner of premises bearing No.9-2-2, J.P.N. Road, Warangal, and the petitioners are tenants thereof. The respondent filed O.S. No.1045 of 2003, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, for eviction of the petitioners. The subject matter of the suit was settled between the parties, through medium of Lok Adalat, and an award came to passed on 29.1.2004. It was agreed that the petitioners shall be entitled to continue as tenants, up to 31.12.2006, on revised rents, with periodical enhancement. 2. Alleging that the petitioners did not vacate the premises even after 31.12.2006, the respondent filed E.P.No.17 of 2007. The E.P. was opposed by the petitioners, on the ground that though the revised terms of tenancy were agreed, in the award passed by the Lok Adalat, the consequence of the violation thereof, was not provided for. Through its order, dated 23.8.2007, the executing court allowed the E.P., and issued a warrant for eviction of the petitioners. The same is challenged in this CRP. 3. Sri Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the award passed by the trial court, does not have any effect, more than extending the tenure of lease, and if the respondent is interested in evicting the petitioners, he has to institute separate proceedings, in accordance with law. He contends that the order passed by the executing court cannot be sustained. 4. Sri L. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is at the instance of the petitioners, that a consent award came to be passed, and it is clearly executable. He contends that the very purpose of obtaining a consent decree is to execute the same, and the petitioners cannot be permitted to defeat the award. 5. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is also a matter of record that the suit filed by the respondent, for eviction of the petitioners, ended in a compromise, through the medium of Lok Adalat. The lease, which was in force up to 1.1.2004, was extended till 31.12.2006, with enhanced rents. With the expiry of that period, the petitioners are under obligation to vacate the premises. Failure thereof, would naturally give rise to a right to the respondent, to seek execution of the award. 6. The lease, which was in force up to 1.1.2004, was extended till 31.12.2006, with enhanced rents. With the expiry of that period, the petitioners are under obligation to vacate the premises. Failure thereof, would naturally give rise to a right to the respondent, to seek execution of the award. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in KHALLI RATH v. EPPILI RAMACHANDRA. AIR 1953 Ori. 74 . It is doubtful whether such judgment still holds the field. All the same, this court is not at all inclined to adopt the view that a consent decree, in which the period of lease is extended, cannot be executed, and the parties have to institute separate proceedings. Such a course would render the adjudication, to an empty formality. Still worse is the case, where the parties themselves agreed upon certain terms, and one of them feels free to retract from it. Such a view would, if at all, harm indiscriminate parties, to defeat the orders or awards, which are passed with their consent. The trial court has examined the matter from correct perspective, and this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 7. The CRP is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients are running a commercial establishment in the premises and they may be granted reasonable time. This request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Strictly speaking, the petitioners have overstayed the premises and caused hardship and loss to the respondent. However, having regard to the fact that the commercial activity is being undertaken in the premises, time is granted to the petitioners, up to 15th May 2008, to vacate the premises, on condition that they shall file an undertaking within four weeks from today, before the executing court, to the effect that they shall put the respondent in vacant and peaceful possession of the premises. The respondent shall also be liable to pay the rents, strictly in accordance with the rates mentioned in the award passed by the Lok Adalat, together with arrears if any, within four weeks from today. 9. The respondent shall also be liable to pay the rents, strictly in accordance with the rates mentioned in the award passed by the Lok Adalat, together with arrears if any, within four weeks from today. 9. In case, the petitioners fail to vacate the premises by 15.5.2008, they shall be liable to pay damages for the premises, at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month, and the warrant issued by the executing court, in the E.P., shall hold good for evicting them. As and when the petitioners vacate the premises, the respondent shall be under obligation to comply with the conditions, provided for under the award.