OM PARKASH Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlord-Decree holder (hereinafter referred to as the Decree-holder) which arises from the following facts:

(2.) PETITIONER filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenant-Judgment-debtor (hereinafter referred to as the Judgment debtor) from the premises in dispute on various grounds i. e. change of user, material structural changes affected without consent of the petitioner, causing material impairment to the value and utility of the building, non-payment of rent for four years and personal occupation as he needed to settle down at Garhshankar to start his medical practice. This petition was filed on September 27, 1975. During the pendency of the ejectment application, petitioner-Decree holder filed an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the site in dispute and to see as to whether there was change of user of the building and whether there were any structural changes brought about by the tenant-Judgment debtor. Shri Shadi Lal, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner who submitted his report on 1-12-1979.

(3.) THAT after the filing of the written statement, a compromise was entered into between the decree bolder and the judgment-debtor. The copy of compromise deed was exhibit as DH/1. According to the terms of the compromise, it was required that Chobara and one of the rooms had been vacated by the Judgment-debtor and possession given to the Decree-holder. In place of one room of the shop which was vacated, another room was given to the Judgment-debtor by the Decree-holder. The shop consisted of two rooms. As a result of compromise, one room of shop which was part of the original tenancy, remained with Judgment debtor and in place of other one, a new room was given. Judgment-debtor delivered possession of Chobara to the Decree holder at the time of passing of decree. Judgment-debtor was permitted to remain in possession for two years more under this arrangement. It was further agreed that the door which was in existence and connected various rooms, was to continue for the period of two years. Decree-holder was to enter possession of the vacated portion within three months There was a stipulation in the compromise that he could not let out any portion of the building during the period of two years Judgment-debtor was required to vacate the possession of two rooms after two years failing which Decree holder could get possession by execution. Acting on this compromise, Rent Controller on 14-6-1976, passed the following order: