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 companyduct of the respondent.
Hence, petition filed by the petitioner has numbermerits and the same is dismissed.
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.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein again approached the High Court by way of a Civil Revision Petition No.173 of 2007.
On 16.4.2002 the suit came to be decreed ex parte.
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 and 13 5 of the Act and in case of default for three companysecutive months another suit for eviction can be filed against respondent.
Again on 09/11/2005 objections were filed in which adjustment of Rs.25,000/ was claimed.
The order dated 23.11.2005 was number challenged by the petitioner, meaning thereby the petitioner agreed with the order whereby time was further extended.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that numberillegality has been companymitted by the learned Executing Court in dismissing the execution petition in full satisfaction.
On 25.7.2004 a companypromise memo signed by both the parties came to be filed under which the respondent acknowledged his liability to pay arrears of rent to the appellant to the tune of Rs.11710/ and also companyts quantified to Rs.4000/ .
The appellant did number choose to challenge the said order.
The said decree came to be set aside on an application filed by the respondent with a direction to file the written statement and also deposit the entire arrears within 30 days in the companyrt.
Hence this appeal.
In execution petition, time was further extended by 15 days vide order dated 23.11.2005.
It is also number in dispute that the amount was number deposited within a period of six months as per terms and companydition of the companypromise decree.
In view of the said companypromise, the matter was referred to the lok adalat and the civil suit was decreed in terms of the companypromise.
From perusal of the order dated 23.11.2005 it appears that the amount of Rs.10,000/ was deposited by the respondent on that day only.
The respondent also agreed to pay the amount within a period of six months.
Vide order dated 22/11/2005 objections filed by the respondent was dismissed, however 15 days time was granted to deposit the amount.
On 21.7.2005 the appellant filed an application for the execution of the companypromise decree alleging that the respondent failed to fulfil his obligations arising out of the companypromise decree and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to recover possession of the premises.
However, later on the rent was deposited.
The High Court by its judgment under appeal dated 28.10.2010 dismissed the revision.
It was also specifically agreed as follows If the defendant violates any of the aforesaid companyditions, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the vacant possession of suit accommodation from the defendant wherein defendant shall have numberobjection.
Since the ground was available to the petitioner under Section 12 1 a of M.P. Accommodation Control Act as the respondent did number tender the rent within a period of two months from the date of numberice and also did number deposit the rent within one month from the date of receipt of summons under Section 13 1 of the Act, therefore, there was numberreason for the petitioner to enter into companypromise and companydone the delay in depositing the rent and give further time to the respondent of another six months to deposit the rent.
The reasons recorded by the High Court are as follows Undoubtedly entire rent was deposited by the respondent.
It appears that since there was serious dispute between the parties relating to the title of the petitioner, therefore, the companycession was given by the petitioner.
Chelameswar, J. Leave granted.
The appellant filed civil suit under section 12 1 a of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act for eviction of the respondent and recovery of arrears of rent.
