N.L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment passed by the District Judge, Shahjahanpur in S.C.C. Revision No. 4 of 1993 Gurmeet Singh and 2 others v. Sardar Hakim Singh and another. A small causes suit No. 2 of 1978 was filed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner and other heirs of Sardar Dalip Singh. Sardar Dalip Singh was the original tenant of the premises in question. After the death of Sardar Dalip Singh, his widow and sons inherited in the tenancy. The plaintiff had filed this suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The J.S.C.C. dismissed the suit for ejectment by judgment and decree dated 26 -4 -78. A Small Causes Revision No. 28 of 1978 was filed by the respondent No. 3 before the District Judge. A compromise was entered into between the respondent No. 3 Smt. Daljeet Kaur and the respondent No. 4 who entered into compromise on her own behalf as well as on behalf of her minor children, who were all parties in the revision proceedings. A typed copy of the compromise dated 11 -9 -1989 has been filed as Annexure 1 with the revision, although it has been stated in the writ petition that the certified copy of the compromise is annexed with the petition. The perusal of the compromise decree and order shows that it was compromised between the parties that the decree for eviction be passed against the defendants and the defendant Smt. Daljeet Kaur shall continue occupying the accommodation in suit for ten years and after expiry of the said period of ten years, the defendant judgment debtor shall vacate the premises and hand over the possession of the house to the appellant (revisionist -applicant in the revision). It was specifically stated that in case after its expiry of the period of ten years, the possession of the accommodation in question was not delivered to the appellant -landlord, who shall be competent to execute the decree for eviction of the petitioners and respondent No. 3 through the Court. The rent for the accommodation in question shall be continued to be paid by 5th of English calendar month and receipt will be given. It appears that after the compromise decree was decreed by the District Judge in the revision, the petitioner continued to live in the accommodation in question alongwith their mother and other brothers for period often years. After the expiry of the period of ten years from the compromise decree, the petitioner and their mother failed to vacate the accommodation as decreed by the compromise decree. The compromise decree was sought to be executed against the petitioner. Before the execution court, an objection under Section 47 C.P.C. was filed by the respondent No. 4 and the present petition and the proforma respondent. It was pleaded in the objection under Section 47 that the defendant Nos. 3 to 8 when the decree was passed, were minors. The decree of ejectment was not capable of execution. It was further submitted that there was no necessity for the defendants to have compromised the revision and get a decree for ejectment passed against them. It was stated that the compromise was entered into between the respondent landlord and Smt. Daljeet Kaur, who is the widow of the deceased tenant. The minor sons of the deceased tenant were parties. The compromise was filed by Smt. Daljeet Kaur, the mother of the minor without any application or affidavit on behalf of the minors. It was pleaded that the compromise order was obtained by playing fraud and deception over the court. By the objection under Section 47 C.P.C., the petitioner urged that the decree for ejectment of the petitioners be quashed and the execution proceedings be struck of.
(2.) THE petitioner judgment debtor had pleaded that the decree passed by the court below was a nullity as there was no compliance of Order 23 R.3 C.P.C. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.B.D. Misra, filed his caveat. The execution court proceeded to execute the decree and the objection under Section 47 C.P.C. was rejected, against which order a revision was filed by Gurmeet Singh and 2 others. The same arguments were advanced before the revisional court also that in suit filed by Sardar Hakim Singh, Smt. Daljeet Kaur and 8 others were defendants for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 of the suit were minors at that time. It was submitted before the revisional court also that the decree was passed on compromise without complying the provisions of Order 23 R.3 C.P.C. The petitioners were minor at the time of filing of the suit on compromise decree. Since Smt. Daljeet Kaur entered into compromise with the landlord for the premises in question.
(3.) THE execution court and the first revisional court observed that the revisional order shows that Daljeet Kaur and her minor son Jaspal Singh, defendant in S.C.C. Suit and Smt. Daljeet Kaur on her behalf and her minor son entered into compromise with the plaintiff on 11 -9 -1979. It appears that an application was moved by the defendant -tenants for permission to file compromise on behalf of minors. The compromise decree was for the benefit of minors also since the interest of minors was properly safeguarded, and the interest of Smt. Daljeet Kaur was common and not in conflict. The J.S.C.C. was pleased to order for compromise.;