- (1.) Ram Diya has filed this revision petition against the judgment and order of the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Gohana, dated 8th of March, 1976 by which the objections of the petitioner filed under section 47 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were dismissed.
(2.) In order to appreciate the point raised before me, certain silent features of the case may be narrated, which read thus: The petitioner was a tenant under the decree-holder. An application for ejectment was filed under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. On appeal the Appellate Authority, on the basis of the compromise which is reproduced below, disposed of the ejectment application :- "(i) The present petitioner was to pay arrears of rent within two months. (ii) The respondent (landlord) was to get a plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee and then give notice to the Petitioner (tenant) who had to vacate eastern shop and continue his business in western shop. (iii) The respondents (landlords) had to construct the eastern shop within 1-1/2 months of its vacation and then to hand over possession to the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner was to pay Rs. 11/- per rent per month of newly constructed eastern shop and was to hand over possession of western shop. Tenancy was of course to be on old terms and conditions. (v) On breach of conditions (ii) to (iv) by the petitioner, application of respondents for ejectment was to be deemed to have been accepted; and (vi) On breach of said conditions by respondents, their application was to be deemed to have been dismissed.'' (Note : The compromise was recorded in Hindi and the above mentioned in English Translation of the same). It appears that the terms of compromise were not complied with by Judgment-Debtor with the result that execution application for the ejectment of the petitioner was filed by the landlord-respondents. On receipt of notice the petitioner put in appearance and filed objections under section 47 read section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The execution Court considered the objections on merits and finding no force, dismissed the same.
(3.) The only contention raised before me by Mr. Cheema, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties were such that the same were unenforceable and that in this situation, the compromise dated 16th of December, 1976 could not be given effect to nor could it be legally executed. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. C. B. Goel, learned counsel for the respondents that the terms of the compromise were quite clear that the judgment debtor did not comply with the same and that the warrant of possession has rightly been issued against the petitioner.;