J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the order of ejectment has been passed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord-respondent sought the ejectment of the tenant from the premises, in dispute, inter alia on the ground that he bonafide required same for his own use and occupation. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant. Ultimately, the Rent Controller found on the appreciation of the evidence, that the landlord required the house, in dispute, for his own use and occupation as he had a big family to support. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the order of ejectment was passed on April 8, 1981, and the tenant was allowed time to vacate the premises upto June 7, 1981. In the appeal filed on behalf of the tenant he (the tenant) made a statement on January 20, 1982, that he had compromised with the landlord on account on which he will not be ejected from the demised premises up to August 15, 1982. Therefore, he be allowed to withdraw his appeal and the same may be dismissed as such. Consequently, the Appellate Authority passed the following order on January 20, 1982 :- "In this appeal, the parties have come a compromise. In view of the terms of the compromise set out in the statements of the appellant and the counsel for the respondent made today in the Court the ejectment order passed against the appellant is upheld and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to cost. The ejectment order shall, however, be not executable before 15.8.1982." It is against the above-quoted order that the present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the tenant. That learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that no order of ejectment could be passed against the tenant on the basis of any compromise unless it was found as a fact that the landlord required the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order of the Appellate Authority was wrong and illegal. The learned counsel further contended that in any case, there was no written compromise filed as required under Order 21II rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on that account also, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the present is a case where the petitioner is abusing the process of the Court. Admittedly, the Rent Controller passed the order of ejectment on merits. In appeal the landlord agreed that the tenant will not be ejected up-to August 15, 1982, from the demised premises, and on that account the tenant withdrew his appeal and consequently, the appeal was dismissed with the observation that the ejectment order shall, however, be not executable before August 15, 1982. Thus, it could not be successfully argued that the present was a case where the order of ejectment was passed without going into the merits of the case. The petitioner availed the time up to August 15, 1982, from the landlord and it was on that understanding that his appeal was dismissed. Under the circumstances, the present revision petition against the said order is not maintainable. As observed earlier, it is a clear case of the abuse of the process of the Court. Having agreed to vacate the premises after August 15, 1982, before the Appellate Authority, the tenant could not file the revision petition on the ground that the order was not passed on merits. The appeal was filed by him and he was competent to withdraw the same on any ground. The appeal was withdrawn because he was allowed about seven months time to vacate the premises. After having agreed to vacate the premises after August 15, 1982, he filed the present revision petition which, as observed earlier, is not maintainable.;