Balubhai Patel vs Manohar Rao Dumre and Another

V.K. Shrivastava, J.—This revision u/s 23E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") has been filed by the tenant/applicant challenging the propriety and legality of the proceeding of the Rent Controlling Authority (for short, "Authority") Raipur, who passed the order and evicted the tenant/applicant from the suit accommodation.

Smt. Chandrabhag Bai claiming herself to be landlord of the suit accommodation u/s 23-J of the Act, filed an application u/s 23-A(b) of the Act, for recovery of possession of the suit accommodation for business of her major son and her unmarried daughters against the tenant/applicant. During pendency of the proceeding both the parties filed a compromise petition on 28-7-1992. On 27-8-1992 statement of tenant/applicant on compromise petition was recorded by the Authority who in his statement did not agree to condition Nos. 2 and 3 of the compromise petition. On 1-9-1992 the Authority, on the basis of submission made before it during argument to the effect that compromise has come into force, came to the opinion that no further action is called for and terminated the whole proceeding.

On 5-8-1996 Manohar Rao and Bhaskar Rao claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of deceased Chandrabhag Bai, filed execution petition for recovery of possession of the suit accommodation. The Authority on 13-8-1996 issued possession warrant and that warrant was executed on 17-8-1996 by dispossessing the tenant/applicant from the suit accommodation and by delivery of possession to Manohar Rao and Bhaskar Rao.

Both the parties are heard on merit as well as on I.A. No. 692/2006. Chandrabhag Bai, claiming herself to be the landlord u/s 23-J of the Act, filed the petition for recovery of the possession against the tenant/applicant u/s 23-A(b) of the Act. During pendency of the proceeding, Chandrabhag Bai-landlord, the applicant/tenant filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 27-8-1992 tenant/applicant was examined by the Authority to ascertain the legality and correctness of the compromise. Tenant/applicant in his statement did not accept the condition Nos. 2 and 3 of the compromise. The authority did not record the compromise and pass any order in accordance with the compromise petition or for eviction of tenant/applicant from the suit accommodation, but only dropped the case mentioning that no further action is required as during argument it has been stated that compromise has come in force.

Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC makes it obligatory on the Court that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the dispute has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, the Court shall order such compromise to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith. Neither the authority held the compromise proved to his satisfaction nor ordered the compromise to be recorded. The authority did not pass any eviction order or decree in accordance with the compromise.

Section 35 of the Act empowers the Authority to execute the order as if the order is decree. The order dated 1-9-1992, i.e., final order does not contain any direction to evict the tenant/applicant from the suit accommodation. Therefore, for eviction purpose that order was not executable. It is apparent that Chandrabhag Bai died after the original proceeding and before filing of the execution. If there is any decree executable in favour of Chandrabhag Bai, that can be executed by her legal heirs in accordance with-Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Execution application has been filed by Manohar Rao and Bhaskar Rao. Whether by operation of law only they alone were entitled or other legal heirs who were also alive are entitled, was required to be decided first, but the Authority did not care to see whether only Manohar Rao and Bhaskar Rao alone are entitled for decree by operation of law or any one else is also entitled for the same. M.P. Civil Court Rules 1961 also compels filing of written authority by other decree holders. No compliance thereof has been made. The execution application was filed after two years. Therefore, under Order 21 Rule 22 of the CPC, it was mandatory to issue notice to the judgment debtor until the Authority considers the issuance of such notice might cause unreasonable delay or will defeat the ends of justice, by passing a reasonable order, but no such compliance has been made by the Authority.

It is unfortunate to say that the Authority without there being any eviction order and without complying with the requirement of various laws in force issued possession warrant merely on the application and even got it executed by dispossessing the tenant/applicant. Execution proceeding initiated and executed was completely illegal. In I.A. No. 692/2006 facts disclosed relate as to how the suit accommodation is being used now and its condition, action taken against the non-applicant No. 1 by the Police Authority and acquisition of other property by tenant/applicant. These facts have no relevancy with the present dispute.

In the result, I.A. No. 692/2006 is dismissed. The execution proceeding initiated on the application of the non-applicants Manohar Rao and Bhaskar Rao on 5-8-1996 and terminated on 24-8-1996 after delivery of possession being irregular and illegal is quashed.

Parties to bear their own costs.