SUBBANNA Vs. B SEETHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's execution second appeal under S.100 read with S.47 CPC. against the decree passed by the Civil Judge at Kolar in Ex.A. No.9 of 1970, confirming the decree passed by the Court of the Munsiff at Kolar in Ex.C. No.73 of 1970.

(2.) The respondent, who is the landlord of the suit premises, commenced proceedings under S.21(l) (h) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), against the appellant for eviction on the ground that he requires the premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal occupation. That application was resisted by the appellant-tenant in that proceeding. On 21st February 1969 the appellant and the respondent entered into a compromise and made an application in HRC, No.4 of 1967, to the Court of the Munsiff at Kolar, before which the rent control proceeding was pending, to pass a decree in terms of the compromise. On the said application, the learned Munsiff passed the following order:

(3.) It is the compromise decree thus passed by the learned Munsiff that the respondent-landlord sought to execute in the Court of the Munsiff at Kolar. The execution was resisted by the appellant-judgment-debtor on the ground that the respondent-decree-holder has given the suit premises on a fresh lease to the appellant on 6th February, 1970. It is, therefore, contended that the respondent-decree-holder is not entitled to execute that compromise decree passed on 21st February 1969 in the rent control proceedings. In support of his case, the appellant relied upon a document said to have been executed by the respondent-decree-holder.