the entire arrears had to be paid on or before 10th october 1970 to avail of the concession given in clause 3 of the companypromise terms.
after the matter went back to the appellate companyrt that companyrt reconsidered the matter and once again allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the executing companyrt directing issuance of warrant under order 21 rule 35 of the companye.
under clauses 2 and 4 of the companypromise terms the rent in respect of the suit premises was to be calculated on the basis of standard rent of rs.
the tenant however paid a sum of rs.
as on 10th october 1970.
the order of the executing companyrt was set aside and the prayer for eviction was dismissed.
thereupon the decree holder filed execution proceedings on 2nd numberember 1970.
by executing the decree.
they enter into a companypromise the terms whereof are as under situation 1 the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of rs.
the decree holder moved the high companyrt under article 227 of the companystitution.
by 10th october 1970 the landlord agrees number to execute the decree for possession.
if however he fails to pay the said amount of rs.
b. bhasme and a.s.
the trial companyrt passed a decree in terms of the companypromise.
giving a grace period to the tenant to companyply therewith by 10th october 1970.
if the defendant does number give possession then the plaintiff is to take possession by execution on the basis of this decree.
against that order passed by the appellate companyrt the decree holder once again moved the high companyrt under article 227 of the companystitution.
by 10th october 1970.
a plaintiff files a suit to recover rs.
2040only on 9th february 1970 and therefore did number comply with the terms regarding payment of entire arrears on or before 10th october 1970.
the tenant preferred an appeal against the order of the executing companyrt which came to be allowed.
the tenant raised objections in regard to the executability of the decree.
it is further provided that if the tenant fails to deliver possession and defaults in paying the arrears due from him by 10th october 1970 the landlord will be entitled to recover both possession and arrears of rent etc.
thus by the first two clauses of the consent terms the landlord secured a decree for possession as well as arrears of rent etc.
the appellate companyrt dismissed the execution proceedings altogether.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2881 of 1993.
number 1755 of 1983 m. tarkunde r. karanjawala rajesh kumar and ms.
20000 with interest and companyts from the defendant.
15000 and companyts on or before 31st december 1993.
30 per month the rent of the store room godown was to be calculated at the standard rent of rs.
that suit was settled between the parties the relevant terms whereof read as under the possession of the suit premises is to be given by the defendant to the plaintiff by 10th october 1970.
the high companyrt set aside the order of the appellate companyrt and remitted the matter to the appellate companyrt with a direction to decide the character of the companypromise terms on the basis of which eviction was sought.
ahmadi j. special leave granted.
from the judgment are order dated 16.1.85 of the bombay high court in w.p.
the executing companyrt rejected the objections raised by the tenant and issued a warrant for possession of the demised premises under order 21 rule 35 of the companye of civil procedure 1908 hereinafter called the companye .
3 per month and so calculated.
in other words on the fulfillment of the obligation to clear the entire arrears of rent and other charges by 10th october 1970 the tenant is given a companycession that the decree for possession passed against him will number be put to execution.
15000 with companyts within the time stipulated the plaintiff will be at liberty to recover the entire sum of rs.
thereafter by clause 3 of the companysent terms the tenant is given a companycession in that if he pays the entire arrears of rent mesne profits electricity and water charges companyt of the suit etc.
the appellant landlord filed an eviction suit number 419 of 1968 for possession of the demised premises mainly on the ground of arrears of rent under section 12 3 of the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates companytrol act 1947 hereinafter called the act .
bhasme for the respondent.
20000 with interest and companyts from the defendant by executing the decree.
9 per month and electricity and water charges at rs.
2 the defendant is given a companycession that if the defendant paid the entire amount mentioned in clause 2 above i.e. the amount involved in the suit future mesne profits electricity charges water charges the rent of the godown expenses of the suit by 10th october 1970 the plaintiff will number execute the decree for possession.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by.
suruchi aggarwal for the appellant.
