2014 (1) TMI 1763 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction of the respondent and recovery of arrears of rent - Restriction on eviction of tenants - Held that - A reading of Section 13, in our view clearly indicates that the payment or the deposit of rent into the court by the judgment debtor (tenant) is contemplated only during the pendency of the suit for eviction or an appeal (by the tenant) against a decree or order of eviction. Section 13 has no application to the execution proceedings of a decree for eviction. The language of Section 13(1) is very clear and explicit in this regard. We fail to understand as to how the Court could read into Section 13, a possibility of enabling the judgment debtor (tenant) to protect his possession by making the payment during the execution proceedings in spite of the fact that he had already been adjudged to be in default of payment of the rent to the landlord. Such an interpretation of Section 13 would be wholly destructive of Section 12(1)(a). Therefore, not only the language of Section 13(1), but also an irreconcilable inconsistency that would arise between Section 12(1)(a) and Section 13(1) if the interpretation placed by the executing court is accepted - in our view is sufficient to hold that the executing court s interpretation of Section 13(1) is unsustainable. In the case on hand the tenant was clearly in arrears of the rent which fact is acknowledged by the compromise memo signed by the tenant which was incorporated in the decree. Looked at any angle, we are not able to agree with the judgment under appeal, nor able to sustain the executing court s order dismissing the landlord s execution petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The execution petition filed by the appellant is also allowed.The executing court will now take necessary steps for evicting the respondent from the disputed premises and handing over the possession of the same to the appellant

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compromise decree under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the executing court to modify the decree.
3. Interpretation of Sections 12 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Compromise Decree:
The appellant filed a civil suit under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. A compromise memo was filed, and a decree was passed based on it. The respondent later defaulted, leading to an execution petition by the appellant. The executing court held that the compromise decree was void concerning eviction, as it contradicted the Act's provisions. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the respondent eventually paid the arrears, granting him protection under Sections 12(3) and 13(5) of the Act. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning unsustainable, stating that the compromise decree was valid and the respondent could not flout it.

2. Jurisdiction of the Executing Court:
The executing court extended the time for the respondent to pay the arrears, which the appellant did not challenge. The Supreme Court held that the executing court's order was beyond its jurisdiction and a nullity, as it effectively modified the decree, which is impermissible. The court emphasized that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree and must execute it as it is. The order granting an extension was void and could not create legal rights or obligations, thus not barring the appellant from recovering possession.

3. Interpretation of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act:
Section 12(1)(a) restricts eviction to specific grounds, including arrears of rent. Section 13(1) requires the tenant to deposit rent during the pendency of an eviction suit or appeal. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 13 does not apply to execution proceedings. The tenant's compliance with Section 13(1) protects him during the suit or appeal, not during execution. The court rejected the executing court's interpretation that allowed the tenant to protect his possession by paying arrears during execution, as it would undermine Section 12(1)(a).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating that the compromise decree was valid, the executing court's order extending time was void, and Sections 12 and 13 did not protect the tenant during execution. The executing court was directed to evict the respondent and hand over possession to the appellant. No order as to costs was made.