TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cilable inconsistency that would arise between Section 12(1)(a) and Section 13(1) if the interpretation placed by the executing court is accepted - in our view is sufficient to hold that the executing court’s interpretation of Section 13(1) is unsustainable. In the case on hand the tenant was clearly in arrears of the rent which fact is acknowledged by the compromise memo signed by the tenant which was incorporated in the decree. Looked at any angle, we are not able to agree with the judgment under appeal, nor able to sustain the executing court’s order dismissing the landlord’s execution petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The execution petition filed by the appellant is also allowed.The executing court will now take necessary steps for evicting the respondent from the disputed premises and handing over the possession of the same to the appellant - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.21560 of 2011] - - - Dated:- 3-1-2014 - RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI J. CHELAMESWAR JJ. Chelameswar, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant filed civil suit under section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the amount though belatedly, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for alternative relief and the execution petitioner was dismissed, against which an appeal was filed on 07/01/2006 and vide order dated 16/03/2006 learned Appellate Court held that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree but no relief was granted to the petitioner against which Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner on 05/02/2006, which was numbered as WP No.6163/06 and vide order dated 08.02.2007 Writ Petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Executing Court with direction to decide the points framed by the Writ Court for determination. (emphasis supplied) 6. The operative part of the order reads as follows: 10. It is for this reason, I am constrained to remand the case to executing court for deciding the issue again arising out of the execution application filed by the petitioner. The executing court will decide the application keeping in view the law laid down in Nai Bahu1 case and any other case which governs the field and will record categorical finding on following issues: 1. Whether compromise decree dated 25.7.2005 is nullity in so far as it re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mise and condone the delay in depositing the rent and give further time to the respondent of another six months to deposit the rent. It appears that since there was serious dispute between the parties relating to the title of the petitioner, therefore, the concession was given by the petitioner. Vide order dated 23.11.2005 learned Executing Court has further extended the time by another 15 days for depositing the arrears of rent keeping in view the good conduct of the respondent. 9. From perusal of the order dated 23.11.2005 it appears that the amount of ₹ 10,000/- was deposited by the respondent on that day only. Thus, vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2004 respondent was required to deposit the arrears within six months which expired on 24.01.2005. In execution petition, time was further extended by 15 days vide order dated 23.11.2005. The order dated 23.11.2005 was not challenged by the petitioner, meaning thereby the petitioner agreed with the order whereby time was further extended. 10. Apart from this if the rent is deposited by the tenant as per Section 13(1) of the Act, then respondent is entitled for protection against eviction under Section 12(3) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited the arrears of rent his possession is required to be protected in view of section 12(3) and 13(5) of the Act. 14. We are of the opinion that all the reasons given by the High Court are unsustainable in law. The reasons which compelled the appellant to enter the compromise are irrelevant for the issue at hand. The respondent/judgment debtor cannot flout the compromise decree with impunity on the ground that his opponent entered the compromise in view of some serious dispute about the maintainability of his claim. The conduct of the appellant in entering the compromise only debars the appellant to recover possession within the period of six months from the date of the compromise decree whether the respondent paid the arrears of rent or not till the last date. If the respondent paid the said amount any time within the period of six months, the appellant would be debarred from seeking the eviction of the respondent on the cause of action which led to the filing of the eviction suit. 15. Coming to the second reason i.e., the failure of the appellant to challenge the order of the executing court dated 23.11.2005 (by which the executing court granted 15 days time to the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he did not choose to challenge such a void order. 17. The third reason of the High Court and the conclusion of the executing court that the compromise decree insofar as it provided for eviction of the tenant in the event of his failure to pay the arrears of rent within a period of six months from the decree is contrary to the provisions of the Act are interlinked. Therefore, we are required to examine the scope of sections 12 and 13 of the Act insofar as they are relevant for the present purpose. 18. Section 12(1) of the Act restricts the right of landlord to evict his tenant only on the grounds enumerated in the said section: 12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit be filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except one of more of the following grounds only, namely 19. The only ground urged by the appellant in his suit is that the tenant fell in arrears of rent. Such a ground is one of the grounds in section 12(1)(a) of the Act which enables the landlord to evict the tenant if he could successfully establish that the tenant did i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of institution of appeal or other proceeding as the case may be. Further, the said subsection also recognizes the authority of the court to extend in its discretion the said period of one month on an application made to it. Sub-section (2)3 provides for the procedure in case of any dispute regarding the rate of rent payable whereas sub-section (3) provides for the procedure to be followed in case of any dispute regarding the person to whom the rent is payable. 21. The submission that found favour with the executing court is that in view of section 13. the decree of the aforesaid Lok Adalat that in default of payment of arrears of rent the judgment debtor shall be liable to be evicted, cannot be enforced because according to Section 13 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, if the judgment debtor pays the rent to the landlord within one month from the date of issuance of summon or within the stipulated time given by the court on an application so made by the judgment debtor, then he will be entitled for protection from eviction under Section 12 M.P. Accommodation Control Act, thus clearly entire decreetal amount has been paid in the execution proceeding, therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear and explicit in this regard. We fail to understand as to how the Court could read into Section 13, a possibility of enabling the judgment debtor (tenant) to protect his possession by making the payment during the execution proceedings in spite of the fact that he had already been adjudged to be in default of payment of the rent to the landlord. Such an interpretation of Section 13 would be wholly destructive of Section 12(1)(a). Therefore, not only the language of Section 13(1), but also an irreconcilable inconsistency that would arise between Section 12(1)(a) and Section 13(1) if the interpretation placed by the executing court is accepted - in our view is sufficient to hold that the executing court s interpretation of Section 13(1) is unsustainable. 26. Coming to the decision of this Court in Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lala Ramnarayan and others (1978) 1 SCC 58, all that this Court held is that a landlord whose right to seek the eviction of his tenant is restricted by a statute (to the grounds specified in the statute) cannot successfully evict the tenant only on the basis of a compromise decree passed in a suit for eviction of the tenant. Apart from the consent of the tenant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
