Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1109 (MAD)

S. Ramachandran v. Parasakthi Ganesh Raja

2012-02-29

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- The defendant in O.S.No.372 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram is the revision petitioner. 2. The respondent/ plaintiff filed the above suit for injunction that he should not be evicted except under due process of law and Electricity connection should not be disconnected. In the plaint, the respondent/ plaintiff admitted that he is a tenant under the revision petitioner. A compromise was entered into between the parties and a memo of compromise was filed in that suit and the same was recorded and as per the prayer made in the memorandum of compromise and as agreed between the parties, the Court below passed a decree as per the compromise memo. As per the memorandum of compromise, the respondent herein agreed to vacate the premises on or before 31.5.2008 and the revision petitioner herein also agreed not to take any action against the respondent/ plaintiff to evict him from the suit schedule premises. As the respondent/ plaintiff failed to vacate as per the memorandum of compromise, the revision petitioner filed Execution Petition before the Court below and the Court below refused to number the Execution Petition and therefore the revision petitioner herein filed C.R.P.(NPD)No.4214 of 2008 before this Court seeking for direction directing the Court below to number the Execution Petition and that was ordered on 20.1.2009 and thereafter the Execution Petition was numbered as E.P.No.2 of 2011 and in that Execution Petition the respondent herein filed E.A.No.35 of 2009 under Section 47 of CPC., stating that the decree is inexecutable and admittedly he is a tenant of the property and he can be evicted only by resorting to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and without filing an application before the Rent Controller he cannot be evicted. That application was allowed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that once a compromise entered into between the parties, the terms of compromise should be strictly adhered to and relied upon the Judgements reported in AIR 2001 SC, 2790 (Salkia Businessmen's Association and others Vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation and others), AIR 2004 Supreme Court, 942 and 2007 (2) CTC 186. Howrah Municipal Corporation and others), AIR 2004 Supreme Court, 942 and 2007 (2) CTC 186. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that when the tenant undertakes to vacate the premises , he surrendered his right as a tenant and thereafter he cannot claim the status of a tenant and therefore there is no need to invoke the provisions of Rent Control Act and without appreciating in these aspects, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that admittedly, he is a tenant and therefore he is entitled to the protection of Rent Control Act and even though a compromise was entered into in O.S.No.372 of 2007 filed by him there is no decree for delivery of possession in that suit and that suit was also filed for injunction restraining the revision petitioner from evicting him except under due process of law and therefore without filing an application to evict the tenantunder the provisions of Rent Control Act, he cannot be evicted by executing the compromise decree. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent and in my view, the Court below without properly appreciating the Judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner erred in allowing the application filed by the respondent. It is true that a tenant is entitled to the benefits of the Rent Control Act and he cannot be evicted except under due process of law. But it does not mean that the tenant cannot be evicted pursuant to the compromise entered into by the tenant with the landlord wherein he agreed to vacate the property on or before a particular date. In this case, admittedly, the suit was filed by the respondent/ tenant for injunction that he should not be vacated except under due process law and that suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties and as per the terms of compromise, the respondent/ plaintiff agreed to vacate the premises on or before 31.5.2008 and the revision petitioner also agreed not to take any action against the respondent/ plaintiff for eviction in view of the undertaking given by the tenant. The trial Court also passed the decree on the basis of the compromise. The trial Court also passed the decree on the basis of the compromise. It is seen from the decree that the suit was decreed in terms of compromise and the memorandum of compromise forms part of the decree and the terms of compromise is also incorporated in the decree and it is stated as follows: “The plaintiff seeks seven months time from the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property namely upto 31st May 2008. The defendant has also agreed for the said compromise and undertakes not to take any action against the plaintiff to evict him from the suit schedule premises.”6. Therefore, it is seen from the decree that the respondent herein sought time to vacate the premises till 31.5.2008 and by the reason of the undertaking the revision petitioner/ landlord also gave up his rights to file an application for eviction against the respondent. Therefore, when a suit was decreed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, the parties are bound to act as per the terms of compromise and when one party fails to act as per the terms of compromise, it is open to the other party to enforce the compromise through process of law and in this case the revision petitioner has also filed Execution Petition to enforce the compromise and in that application it is not open to the respondent to contend that he can be evicted only under the provisions of Rent Control Act. The parties must respect the compromise and act according to the compromise and the compromise is also approved by the Court. The parties should act as per the decree and it is not open to one of the parties to resile from the compromise and contend that he is entitled to the benefits of the Rent Control Act. In other words, the parties are estopped from acting against the compromise and the parties are not allowed to act against the compromise which has been approved by the Court . 7. Hence, the order of the Court below is set aside and the revision is allowed and the petition filed by the respondent under Section 47 of CPC is dismissed. As the revision is allowed, the order passed in E.A. No.35 of 2009 is dismissed and the Court below is directed to restore E.P.No.2 of 2009 and pass orders in accordance with law. As the revision is allowed, the order passed in E.A. No.35 of 2009 is dismissed and the Court below is directed to restore E.P.No.2 of 2009 and pass orders in accordance with law. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.