Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3657 (ALL)

Anis Ahmad v. Mohd. Zafar Saddiq

2010-12-06

SANJAY MISRA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J. - Heard Sri R.S. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the premises in question and is aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2010 whereby the Trial Court has dismissed his objection under Section 47 C.P.C. in Civil Misc. No.42 of 2008 filed in execution proceedings. He is also aggrieved by the revisional order dated 04.11.2010 passed in Revision No.25 of 2010 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Rampur, whereby the revision has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier a Small Causes Court Suit No.9 of 2001 was decreed on the basis of compromise between the father of the petitioners and the landlords. Under the compromise the rent was increased from Rs.190/- to Rs.375/-. He states that under the compromise the earlier rent upto 28.02.2007 was paid. However, the landlord filed the Execution Application for executing his compromise decree on the ground that the petitioners have been in default for more than two months, hence they are liable to be evicted in terms of compromise. 4. Learned counsel says that the objection under Section 47 C.P.C. was wrongly rejected for the reason that the petitioner had sent the difference in the rent which they were to pay by cheque on two occasions but the landlord-tenant refused to accept the same and as such they cannot be held to be defaulter for more than two months and hence their objection could not be rejected. 5. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, both the Courts below have concurrently held in execution proceedings that the petitioner was in arrears for more than two months. The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The decree was a compromise decree. It provided that there should not be default of more than two months on behalf of the petitioner and in case there is such default the landlord would be entitled to execute the compromise decree. Admittedly, there was a default. The reason for default as given by the petitioner that he sent the cheques by post which were refused by the landlord is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner was not in default. Admittedly, there was a default. The reason for default as given by the petitioner that he sent the cheques by post which were refused by the landlord is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner was not in default. Admittedly, the landlord was entitled to receive the amount which he was entitled to receive under the compromise decree and the petitioner was in default for more than two months. Consequently, no interference is required in the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any error in law. 6. The writ petition has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. No order is passed as to costs.