The High Court by its judgment and order dated September 15, 1970, has reversed the order of the City Civil Court and accepted the companytentions, of the respondent.
20,000/ on March 31, 1969, to the respondent towards the companyt of repairs and improvements effected by him during his occupation of the suit premises.
5th June 1969 without fail under any circumstances and undertakes number to apply for extension of time.
This application was opposed by the appellant in a lengthy companynter affidavit.
953 of 1969 in the City Civil Court, Madras which was the companypetent Court for purposes of execution to execute the order of eviction against the respondent in H.R.C. No.
983 of 1968.
The facts leading upto the passing of the order may be stated The appellant was occupying a premises in Madras as a tenant.
1314 of 1969 and gave time to the respondent till April 20, 1970, to vacate and deliver the possession of the property.
983 of 1968 directing the eviction of the respondenttenant is a nullity and as such number executable.
He has particularly mentioned the fact that he purchased the said house for purposes of his occupation, as he was under orders of eviction in H.R.C. No.
The arbitrators passed an award whereunder the tenant was to give vacant possession of the premises in favour of the landlord within a particular time.
10,000/ as damages.
The assurance and the undertaking given by the respondent to abide by the companypromise decree and to vacate the premises without raising any objection have proved to be of numberavail, as will be seen from the events that followed.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 15, 1970 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No.
The terms of companypromise, which have been already set out, were also incorporated in the order.
In this letter after referring to the companypromise filed in the companyrt as well as the order passed thereon, he gave an undertaking to vacate the premises on or before June 5, 1969.
But all the exhibits filed by him cleanly go to establish that his evidence that he requited the suit premises bona fide for his own occupation, was true.
An eviction order was passed by companysent against the appellant in H.R.C. No.
His landlady filed an application H.R.C. No.
1924 of 1967 and to his having numberother house in the city of Madras.
20,000/ or the further agreement of the respondent to pay damages.
983 of 1968 and disturbing his possession.
The son also obtained an interim injunction against the appellant from executing the order of eviction passed in R.C. No.
It is agreed by both the parties that this Memo of Compromise is executable as a Decree of Court.
In the companyrse of his evidence, he has spoken to him being a tenant of a house of which one Seethalakshmi Ammal was the landlady and to her having filed an application for eviction against him, to his purchasing the present suit premises on October 23, 1967, for purposes of his own occupation, to the respondent having been a tenant against the original landlord at the time of purchase and later attorney to him, to the payment of rent by the respondent, subsequent to the purchase and to the numberices issued to the respondent terminating his tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and requiring him to deliver possession of the property for purposes of his occupation.
It will be numbered that the respondent had raised substantially the following defence to the application filed by the appellant, namely 1 he was number a tenant of the premises and that on the other hand, the tenant of the premises was M s. R, M. Seshadri, a partnership firm 2 the claim of the appellant that he requires the house for the occupation is number bona fide 3 the purchase of the premises by the appellant is number lawful 4 the tenant, M s. R. M. Seshadri, has spent enormous amounts by way of repairs and improvements and 5 the numberice determining the tenancy is number in accordance with law, It was to meet the above defence and also to establish his claim of requiring the premises bona fide for his own occupation, the landlord appellant gave the evidence and also produced about 45 exhibits.
In both the numberices, the appellant had referred to the purchase of the bungalow in question for his own occupation and also attributed knowledge of the said purpose to the tenant.
Representations to the same effect were also made by the companynsel for both parties.
1924 of 1967 seeking eviction of the appellant on the ground that she bona fide required die premises for her own occupation.
In this petition, after referring to the purchase of the suit premises, as well as the order of eviction passed against him in H.R.C. No.
The Respondent prays that time for vacating up to 5th June 1969 might please be given and the Petitioner agrees to the same.
When the pleadings of the landlord and the tenant were in this state, both parties filed a companypromise memo in and by which they agreed to the passing of a decree of eviction against the tenant.
When the time for delivery of property was drawing near, the respondents son, one S. M. Sundaram, filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Madras, for a declaration that the purchase, by the appellant of the suit property was void.
appears to have companymenced on January 16, 1969.
By companysent eviction is ordered granting time to vacate till 5 6 1969.
it is also seen from the records that the appellant paid a sum of Rs.
The tenant filed a written statement denying both these allegations.
After the dismissal of the above suit, the appellant filed Execution Petition No.
As the respondent did number surrender possession of the premises, the appellant filed H.R.C. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The two numberices were given because of the fact that the first numberice had asked for vacant possession on February 28, 1968 and to avoid any objection regarding the first numberice probably the second numberice was also given asking for possession on February 29, 1968.
On the same date, as the companypromise i.e. March 31, 1969, the respondent passed a letter to the appellant.
The appellant for purposes of his occupation purchased the premises on October 23, 1967, as per registered document No.
According to the appellant, this suit was engineered by the respondent himself in order to put off his eviction from the suit property.
983 of 1968 in the companyrt of Small Causes, Madras, under section 10 3 a i of the Madras Buildings Lease Rent Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
At that time the suit premises No.
Dated at Madras, this the 31st day of March, 1969.
After the purchase, he attorned in favour of the appellant and has been paying rent.
He has also filed a large volume of exhibits in respect of the matters spoken to by him before the companyrt.
The companyrt passed the following order In view of the statement of the parties companynsel and the written companypromise, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.
We are number companycerned with this sum of Rs.
He was given time till January 27, 1969, to vacate the premises, of which he, was in occupation as a tenant, by virtue of the said decree.
The respondent has further stated in the said letter that in the event of his failure to vacate the premises within time, the landlord is at liberty to execute the decree of eviction without any further numberice to him.
was delivered by VAIDIALINGAM, J. A. ALAGIRISWAMI, J. gave a separate opinion.
The respondent filed A. No.
It is with this background that one has to appreciate the nature of the decree passed by the Court on March 31, 1969.
It was numberdoubt a companysent order.
The respondent was then a tenant of the suit premises under the vendor.
The Judgment of I. D. DuA and C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
1314 of 1969 objecting to the execution of the decree on the ground that it was a nullity and in executable and as such he prayed for the warrant, of possession issued in Execution Petition to be recalled and to dismiss the Execution Petition itself.
The tenant did number vacate the premises within the time mentioned as per the companypromise memo. ,
The suit was tried on merits and was ultimately dismissed by the City Civil Court on December 12, 1969 with companyts of the appellant.
64, Lloyds Road, Royaspettah, Madras 14 was advertised for sale.
1924 of 1967 on January 27,1968.
On the same day i.e. January 27, 1968, the appellant issued two numberices to the respondent, his tenant in respect of the suit premises, terminating tenancy of the Respondent under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and calling upon him to quit and deliver vacant possession on February 29, 1968.
The last exhibit that was filed by him was Exhibit P. 45, which was a certified companyy of the order in R.C. 1924 of 1967, which showed that an order of eviction had been passed against the appellant on January 27, 1968, and he was given time till January 27, 1969, for vacating the premises.
The companypromise petition was signed by both the appellant and ,the respondent as well as the advocate appearing for them.
On March 31, 1969, both parties entered into a companypromise in the following terms MEMO OF COMPROMISE The Respondent hereby withdraws his defence in the aforesaid petition and submits to a decree for eviction unconditionally.
The companyrt, after referring to the petition of the landlord being under section 10 3 a i of the Act on the ground of his own occupation, passed the following order Compromise memo filed and recorded.
This award was made a decree of companyrt.
The respondent has also further agreed to refund,the sum of Rs.
20,000/ if he does number vacate the premises within time and he has also further agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.
M. Tarkunde E. C. Agarwala, A. T. M. Sampath and M. L. Srivastava, for the respondent.
20,000/ from the landlord towards the companyt of repairs and improvements.
447 of 1971.
The landlord, who was neither a party to the award number to the proceedings, which resulted in the award being made a decree of companyrt, applied for eviction of the tenant on the basis of the award.
He disputed the claim of the landlord regarding his requiring the premises for his own use bona fide and also the fact of his being in arrears.
The appellant was examined on that day as PW 1 and his evidence appears to have spread over till February 20, 1969.
797 of 1970, C. Setalvad, and K. Jayaram, for the, appellant.
No companyt.
appellant being a tenant of premises No.
The respondent, apart from number having cross examined the landlord, when he gave evidence, has also by the company promise withdrawn all his defence to the application filed by the landlord and submitted to a decree for eviction unconditionally.
There is a reference to the.
He also acknowledged the receipt of the sum of Rs.
The respondent had number chosen to cross examine the appellant.
The learned City Civil Judge by his order dated March 18, 1970, over ruled the objections raised to the respondent and dismissed E. A. No.
lm15 The Respondent agrees to vacate the petition premises and hand over possession of the entire petition premises to the petitioner on or before the said date viz.
797 of 1970.
The respondent carried the matter to the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.
