TMI Blog1977 (10) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed two witnesses and the suit was adjourned for their further evidence to July 12, 1960. On that day a joint compromise petition was filed settling the matter. Statement of counsel on both sides was recorded by the court on the same day and an order was passed on the following day, namely, July, 13, 1960 and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Without referring to the details of the terms of compromise at this stage, it may be stated that the decree of eviction was executable only after five years. Five years passed. The appellant took execution on July 21, 1965. The execution was resisted by the tenants. They set up a plea of adjustment under Order 21, rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. The said objection was rejected by the court on December 10, 1966 An appeal against the said order was also rejected on July 13,. 1967.A second appeal by the tenants was dismissed by the High Court onSeptember 27, 1968. Thus the first litigation regarding plea of adjustment of the decree terminated in the High Court on September 27 1968. Even so, the tenants had already opened another front of attack against the decree on July 17, 1967, by means of an application in the executing court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt observed in that decision as follows If the agreement or compromise for the eviction of the tenant is found, on the facts of a particular case, to be in violation of a particular Rent Restriction or Control Act, the Court would refuse to record the compromis e as it will not be a lawful agreement. If on the other hand, the Court is satisfied on consideration of the terms of the compromise and, if necessary, by considering them in the context of the pleadings and other materials in the case, that the agreement is lawful, as in any other suit, so in an eviction suit, the Court is bound to record the compromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith . With regard to the objection that the decree was unregistered, Mr. Pai relied upon a decision of this Court in Girdharilal (dead) by L. Rs. v. Hukam Singh and others(1) and read to us the following observations therefrom : Even though the decree of a Court embodies an agreement between the parties, we do not think that the agreement between the parties placed before us, involving the recognition of a transfer, could require registration unless the terms of the compromise decree necessarily involved the execution of a deed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Para 4 of the plaint discloses the grounds under section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 which are to the effect that the plaintiff requires the premises for her own bona fide residence and also for her business of money lending and to start her own business of cloth and that she has no other suitable accommodation for either purpose in the city of Jabalpur. She has also mentioned the business need of her brother, Tek Chand, whose income from the business will be utilised to meet the expenses of the plaintiff. It is also stated that the defendants have built and acquired vacant possession of accommodation in Manjipura, Jabalpur and were in possession of three three- storeyed houses having three spacious shop premises therein. It will be necessary now to set out below the terms of compromise arrived at by the parties on the basis of which the decree was passed 1. That the defendants admit the full claim of the plaintiff for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits as claimed in the suit on the following conditions :- (a) That the defendants shall put the plaintiff in a vacant and peaceful possession of the entire tenancy premises except portion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve their sign Boards etc. to the extent they are preventing the proper light and air to the portion of the plaintiff on the second storey. PRAYER The parties, therefore, pray that a decree in terms of the above compromise be passed . It is submitted by Mr. Sangbi that there is nothing to show either on the face of the decree or even on the materials on the record that the court applied its mind for the purpose of being satisfied that a decree for eviction on any of the admissible grounds under section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (briefly the Act M.P. Act), were present in the case. Having examined the pleadings, the terms of the compromise as well as the statement of counsel of either party recorded by the trial court and the resultant order passed thereafter, we are unable to accede to the submission that the court did not apply its mind to the relevant question that was necessary to be considered at that stage at the time of passing the decree. Mr. Sanghi next submits that the plaintiff did not at all establish the valid ground for passing a decree for eviction under the M.P. Act. According to him the house was let out for non-residential purpose, viz. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding to Mr. Sanghi when the house was let for non- residential purpose the appellant cannot succeed in ejecting the tenant 'from the house for a composite purpose of residence as well as business and he submits that the principles laid down in Dr. Gopal Dass Verma (supra) fully support him. In Dr. Gopal Dass Verma (supra) this Court was dealing with the provisio ns of Delhi Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (briefly the Delhi Act). Section 2(g) defines premises under that Act thus 'Premises' means any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be let, separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, We may contrast the definition of accommodation in the M.P. Act with which we are concerned. Under section 3(a) of the M.P. Act, accommodation means- (x) any land which is not being used for cultivation, (y) any building or part of a building, and it includes- (1) garden, open land and out houses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of a building; (2) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of a building; (3) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as passed in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Mr. Sanghi also submits that the decree in this case incorporated a lease for five years and in absence of registration under section 17(1) (d) of the Registration Act the decree is invalid and cannot be acted upon. As already pointed out this objection is untenable in view of the decision of this Court in Girdharilal (supra). The question would turn on the terms of the compromise. After a careful consideration of the terms of the compromise and the whole tenor of the compromise petition it is absolutely clear that there was no intention to create a lease between the parties. It is the dominant intention of the document which must guide the construction of its contents. In the recitals of the compromise petition in three places it is stated categorically that the plaintiff shall be entitled to execute her decree against the defendants . There was therefore, no intention to create a lease with regard to any portion of the property although certain arrangements had been entered for the-intermediate occupation of a certain portion before vacating that portion after expiry of five years. The few alternations and improvements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
