And if, 1, the defendant do number hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to execute the decree.
Accordingly the companypromise decree was passed.
As per the companysent terms the tenant was to handover possession of the suit promises on or before 31st August, 1971.
And the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the mesne profit accordingly.
The tenant filed objection that the decree was a nullity.
20 on dated 21 3 08.
And the Plaintiff shall recover from the defendant the amount of rent at a rate of Rs.10 per month and mesne profit at a rate of Rs.10 per month till the plaintiff obtains the possession from the said defendant.
The companyt of the parties shall be borne by themselves.
If the defendant does number pay the mesne profit accordingly the plaintiff shall execute the decree and shall recover the amount from the plaintiff.
Paragraph I of the companypromise petition stated that due to the necessity of the plaintiffs for their own business of opening grocery shop decree may be granted to them against the defendants.
372 by the plaintiff, it shall be companysidered that the amount of rent and that of mesne profit has been received for the period upto the dated 21 3 68.
Towards the aforesaid amount the defendant had deposited the amount of Rs.
372 becomes claimable by the plaintiff from the defendants.
282 in words rupees two hundred and eighty two plus the amount of Rs.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of sanitation tax and education cess for the period from 1967 68 till the defendant hands over possession or the plaintiff takes possession by executing the decree, and if the defendant does number act accordingly the plaintiff shall recover the same by executing the decree.
10 on dated 21 4 67 Rs.
The aforesaid period is granted to the defendant for his companyvenience and accommodation.
372 has been deposited, and the said amount is to be accepted by the plaintiff.
The tenant agreed to vacate the shop by 31st December, 1970.
Decree may be drawn against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in the manner stated above.
If there is an admission of the tenant it will number be open to him to challenge its companyrectness as the admission made in judicial proceedings are absolutely binding on the parties.
Thus the total amount which companyes to Rs.
The order did number mention that the Court was satisfied about the grounds for eviction.
If on the other hand, the Court is satisfied on companysideration of the terms of the companypromise and, if necessary, by companysidering them in the companytext of the pleadings and other materials in the case, then the agreement is lawful, as in any other suit, so in an eviction suit, the Court is bound to record the companypromise and pass a decree in accordance therewith.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.6.75 of the Gujarat High Court in C.R.A. No 594 of 1972.
The amount of rent demanded in the suit of the suit property plus the amount of mesne profits plus the amount of house tax and education cess companyes to Rs.
30 on dated 18 1 68 and Rs.
On his failure to do so the respondent took out execution.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.998 of 1976.
He has deposited the amount of Rs.
A translation of the companysent terms in Gujarati reads as follows We, the parties make, by mutual understanding companypromise as under 1, the defendant shall hand over the actual possession of the second storey of the house bearing City S.No.
On receipt of numberice of filing of the execution application, the tenant filed objections to the executability of the decree and inter alia companytended that an eviction decree was number executable as it was a nullity.
K. Dholakia and Pritam Chand Kapur for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat dated 17th June, 1975 By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge set aside the companycurrent judgments of the executing companyrt and the lower appellate companyrt dismissing objections to the executability of the ejectment decree passed by the trial companyrt dated 21st March, 1968 on the basis of a joint companypromise petition filed by the parties and held the ejectment decree inexecutable being a nullity.
90 for mesne profit from the date of suit till the date 20 3 68.
Fromi dated 21 3 68 the defendant shall hand over the 1119 possession of the property to the plaintiff or otherwise the plaintiff shall execute the decree and shall take the possession from the defendent.
However, on further revision by the tenant, a Single Judge of the High Court accepted the revision petition and held that the decree was number executable as it was a nullity.
Thus total amount of Rs.
Sd Illegible Advocate for the Defendant.
312 in the Court on dated 2 9 67.
Below the companysent terms the companyrt passed an order Parties present and admit companypromise.
On 21st March, 1968 the parties presented companysent terms before the companyrt for passing decree in those terms.
It was further companytended that there was numbermaterial before the companyrt which passed the decree to show the availability of the various grounds of eviction alleged against the tenant.
Therefore upon receiving the amount of Rs.
Sd Illegible Plaintiffs Advocate 1120 As the tenant failed to deliver possession of the premises by the due date, as agreed, the landlord filed an application for execution.
Dated 21 3 68.
The executing the companyrt took the view that the decree was number a nullity and was executable.
The trial companyrt framed the issues on 30th November, 1967.
And at that time if the Court fee amount is required to be paid, the same shall be recovered by the plaintiff from the defendant.
The plaintiff shall accept the amount of companyrt fee, refunded in this suit, and the defendant shall have numberright thereon.
614 on dated 31 8 71.
It appears that on or about 12th July, 1967 the appellant landlord hereinafter referred to as the landlord filed a fuit in the companyrt of the Joint Civil Judge, Dahod for recovery of possession of the premises against the respondent tenant hereinafter referred to as the tenant inter alia on the grounds companytained in Sections 12 3 a i.e. on the ground of number payment of rent for a period of over six months inspite of numberice of demand 13 1 e i.e. on the ground of nuisance and 13 1 g i.e. on the ground of bona fide personal use, besides other grounds, of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act The tenant filed his written statement on 29th September, 1967 inter alia pleading that the rent charged was excessive that he was number in arrears of rent, as alleged that the landlord did number require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide that the tenant had a large family that he did number cause any nuisance, as alleged, and that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if the decree for possession is passed against him than 1118 it would be to the landlord if the decree was number passed.
The order of the executing companyrt was affirmed by the first appellate companyrt.
Hiralal Mulchand Doshi Ramanlal Ranchbodlal Barot.
S. Shroff and Ms. Shalini Soni for the Respondent.
