- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order allowing a revision under Sec tion 115 of the C. P. C. filed by the judgment debtor against an order passed by the ex ecuting court rejecting his objections filed under Section 47 of the C. P. C. whereunder setting aside the order passed by the execut ing court, the consent decree sought to be executed was declared to be void and not executable, the petitioner-decree-holder has approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the revisional order.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner had filed a suit seeking ejectment of the defendant respondent from the premises in dispute under his tenancy and for recovery of ar rears of rent and damages pendente-lite and future. During the pendency of the suit the parties entered into a compromise which was duly verified and the suit was decided in terms of the same by the trial court indicat ing that the compromise shall form part of the decree. This decree was passed on 28-4-77. It may be noticed that the suit seeking a decree for the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute had been filed on the ground of default as contemplated under Section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ). Under the terms of the compromise it was settled that the plaintiff's suit for the evic tion of the defendant from the premises in suit was to be decreed allowing the defen dant-tenant to continue to occupy the same till 31-10-77 whereafter the same was to be vacated by the tenant on 1-1-78. It was specifically provided that in the event of default in vacating the premises it will be open to the decree holder to get the tenant evicted and recover possession of the premises in suit, through the process of the court. It was also indicated that the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation for the period ending 31-3-77 had been paid to the decree holder and with effect from 1-4-77 till the said premises was vacated, the defendant-tenant was to remain liable to pay an amount of Rs. 15/-per month. When the tenant did not vacate the premises in dispute as agreed upon the plaintiff-decree-holder started proceedings for getting the decree executed. In those proceedings the tenant judgment debtor filed an objection under Section 47 of the C. P. C. asserting that in the month of January 1978 in the presence of several persons the plaintiff-decree holder had orally agreed to continue the tenancy of the tenant as before and the decree for his eviction had become unenforceable. This objection was con tested by the petitioner asserting that no such agreement had taken place and the decree holder was throughout pressing the defendant-tenant to vacate the premises and on his failure had no option left except to get the decree executed.
(3.) THE executing court after consider ing the evidence and the materials on the record disbelieved the claim of the tenant-judgment debtor. THE executing court was further of the view that the claim of the judgment debtor tenant in effect was a claim in regard to the adjustment of the decree and taking into consideration the provisions contained in Order XXI, Rules 2-A and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the requisite conditions contemplated wherein had not been satisfied no such ad justment could be taken notice of. On the aforesaid conclusion the objections filed by the tenant judgment debtor were dismissed. The revisional court vide the im pugned order held that the oral agreement relating to the adjustment set up by the judgment debtor tenant could not be taken notice of in view of the statutory embargo contained in Order XXI, Rules 2-A and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revisional court also affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court that in fact no such adjust ment as claimed by the defendant- tenant had been arrived at and the claim of the defendant was not proved at all.;