KISHAN LAL Vs. DEO PRASAD
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
K.S.LODHA, J. -
(1.)THIS is a revision filed by Kishan Lal one of the judgment debtors against Desprased and others decree -holders and it arises out of the order of the learned Civil Judge, Nagpur camp Merta dated 7 -10 -1982 by which the judgment debtors' objections against the execution of the decree for ejectment have been dismissed. The other judgment debtors who had not joined Kishan Lal in filing the revision have been impleaded as non -petitioners No. 4 to 7.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this revision briefly seated are that the present non -petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and their father Jainarain, who is since deceased, filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner Kishan Lai and the non -petitioners Nos. 4 to 7 in respect of five shops and a residential accommodation situated over the shops. The ejectment was sought on grounds of default, personal necessity, sub letting as also material alterations having been male by the tenants in the suit premises without the consent of the landlord. After trial the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit holding on all the four counts against the plaintiffs so far as ejectment was concerned but the suit was partly decreed in respect of arrears of rent. Against this judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Nagpur camp Merta dated 12 -1 -1973, the plaintiffs went up in appeal before the learned District Judge, Merta. During the course of the appeal, a compromise was arrived at by the parties and the salient terms of the compromise are as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
On the basis of this compromise, the plaintiff's suit for ejectment was decreed by the learned District Judge on 5 -5 -1976. The defendants were granted time upto 5 -6 -1976 to hand over possession of the residential portion and time upto 30 -6 -1976 was granted to him to hand over possession of two of the shops out of the five as described in the deed of compromise. The case of the plaintiffs decree holders was that although judgment debtors had handed over possession of the residential accommodation, they failed to hand over possession of the two shops in accordance with the compromise and, therefore, they levied execution of the decree. The judgment debtors raised an objection in the execution Court that the decree passed by the learned District Judge on the basis of compromise was not executable as it was against the provisions of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act (here -in -after called 'the Act) in as much as the Court granted the decree for ejectment merely on the basis of the compromise without satisfying itself whether the plaintiffs' case for ejectment falls under any of the clauses of Section 13 of the Act and unless the Court was no satisfied, it could not have granted a decree for ejectment. The decree was, therefore, a nullity and objection to its execution can be taken before the executing court. The learned Civil Judge after hearing both the parties, over ruled the objection. One of the judgment debtors has, therefore, now come up in revision.
I have heard Shri M D. Calla on behalf of the petitioner, Shri A.L. Chopra on behalf of non -petitioner No. 6 who has also supported Mr. Calla, as also Shri Rajendra Mehta on behalf of the non -petitioners Nos. 1 to 3.
(3.)THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as non -petitioner No. 6 was that there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the court was satisfied that the suit premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the decree holders and if they did not get these premises, they would suffer greater hardship than the petitioner and non -petitioners Nos. 4 to 7 and, therefore, the decree passed by the learned District Judge being in contravention of the provisions of Section (sic)13 as also Section 14(2) of the Act such a decree cannot be executed. In support of their contentions. the learned Counsel placed reliance upon Ferozi Lal v. Man Mal : AIR1970SC794 , Kaushalya Devi v. K.L. Bansal : 2SCR1048 , K.K. Chari v. R.M. Sheshndri : 3SCR691 , Nagindas v. Dalpatram : 2SCR544 , Roshanlal v. Mohanlal : 1SCR878 , Mai Bd(sic)iu v. Lata Ramnarayan : 1SCR723 and Suleman Noormohammed v. Umarbhai AIR 1978 SC 932. Apart from these cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court, he also referred to a case of this Court reported in Shyam Sunder v. Moda Ram (1981 RLW 178). Mr. Chopra, the learned Counsel for non -petitioner No. 6 while supplementing the contention of Mr. Calla, also referred to M/s Central Jute Agencies, Jaipur v. Hazari Singh (1977 WLN 74) and Nanak Norandas v. Gairaben widow of Chunilal Maneklal (1975 RCJ 421) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for non -petitioners No. 1 to 3 supported the order of the court below and relied upon a number of other authorities to which I shall presently refer.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.