- (1.)ON 13/12/1982, the respondent landlord initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellant tenant on the grounds available under clauses (a), (d), (e) and of sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short).
(2.)THERE was some dispute as to the rate of rent at which rent was payable in respect of the premises. On 27/10/1983, the trial court passed an order under S. 15(1) of the Act directing the tenant to deposit rent in arrears calculated @ Rs 200 per month from 1/9/1980 and to continue to deposit the rent falling due month by month by the 15th day of each month. The proceedings remained pending for quite sometime.
On 16/11/1992, an application was filed before the Rent Controller purporting to be a compromise titled as one under Order 23 Rule 3 and S. 151 C.P.C. which recites that the dispute between the parties was settled and a new tenancy was created whereunder the tenancy premises as described in the deed, would be retained by the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500. This compromise petition was accompanied by lease deed and affidavits. It appears that the lawyers were on strike and, therefore, there was no appearance by the lawyers of the parties.

(3.)ON 23/3/1993, the respondent landlord filed a petition disputing the factum of compromise and submitting that the documents which were filed on 16/11/1992 were the outcome of fraud and coercion and, therefore, were not acceptable to the landlord. By order dtd. 23/1/1995, the trial court upheld the objection preferred by the landlord and refused to take the compromise on record. This order dtd. 23/1/1995 was not challenged by the tenant by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority and hence the order achieved finality.