- (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 516 and 684 of 1993 as the question of law involved therein is the same.
(2.) FACTS are being taken from Civil Revision No. 516 of 1993. Smt. Rrishna Rani and others filed a civil suit being 254 of 1984 against Harbans Lal son of Gurditta Mal and the Firm Jattu Ram Rekha Ram, Balachaur through Keshva Nand, for recovery of arrears of rent or compensation for use and occupation of the shop in dispute for the period November 1, 1983 to May 31, 1984 and also for ejectment of the aforesaid defendants from the said shop. Keshva Nand (defendant No. 2), petitioner herein and counsel for the defendants made a joint statement on August 4, 1987 in the suit, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below : "as regards the matter in controversy in this case, the suit of the plaintiff shall stand dismissed. However, we will pay Rs. 2,000/- towards the arrears of rent in lump sum by 10 8. 1987, in case, the defendant No, 2 undertakes to execute the rent note in respect of the shop in dispute in this case w. e. f. 10. 8. 1987, for a period of 4 1/4 years. This rent note will be executed by Keshva Nand as Proprietor of M/s. Keshva Nand Gopal Krishan in favour of the plaintiffs or any one of their representatives on their behalf The costs of the rent note will be borne by us". Statement of the plaintiff No. 2 as also counsel for the plaintiffs was recorded on the same date which reads as under: "we have heard the above statement of defendant No. 2 and his counsel. We admit the same to be correct. The suit may be disposed of in terms of according to the above statement of defendant No. 2 and the parties be left to bear their own costs".
(3.) IN terms of the above statements, a rent note dated August 5, 1987 was executed between the parties. It has been placed on the file of the revision petition as Annexures P 3/1. The suit was disposed of by the learned Sub Judge, Garhshankar by order dated August 10, 1987. The suit was dismissed as compromised and the parties were left to bear their own costs It is appropriate to notice the said order of the learned Sub Judge, which reads as under : "the rent note has been executed and the Photostat copy of the same has also been placed on the file Shri Sant Ram, learned counsel for the plaintiff has made a statement that the plaintiff has compromised the suit and that the same be dismissed as compromised. Accordingly this suit is dismissed as compromised and the parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the Judicial record room". After expiry of 4 1/2 years of the date of the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, the plaintiffs in the suit filed an execution application on November 14, 1992 in civil suit No. 254 of 1984, in the Court of Addl. Senior Sub Judge seeking warrant of possession of the shop by requesting as under : "the dispute was compromised between the paities. As per the compromise Keshwa Nand son of Jattu Ram, defendant No. 2 gave a statement dated 4. 8,1987 by which he agreed to vacate the shop in dispute after expiry of four and half years. Now the said period has been expired on 4. 2. 1992. The defendant No. 2 has not vacated shop and has not delivered possession of the shop in dispute to the decree holders. It is, therefore, prayed that the warrant of possession of shop in dispute may kindly be issued in favour of Decree Holders and against the J. D. in the interest of justice and equity, The J. D has not paid arrears and rent since January 1992, which may also begot recovered. ";