2000 (9) TMI 1071 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the compromise between the parties extinguished the ex parte decree.
2. Whether the compromise was recorded as per Rule 2 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.).
3. The effect of the compromise on the executability of the decree.
4. Whether the new lease agreement provided protection under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.
5. The validity of the executing court's and High Court's orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the compromise between the parties extinguished the ex parte decree:
The appellant argued that the compromise did not extinguish the decree but merely postponed its execution. The respondent contended that the compromise and the new lease extinguished the decree. The Court concluded that the existing decree was not extinguished, as the compromise only postponed the execution for three years and partially satisfied the decree.

2. Whether the compromise was recorded as per Rule 2 of Order 21 of the C.P.C.:
The Court emphasized that for a compromise to be recognized, it must be recorded under Rule 2 of Order 21 of the C.P.C. The compromise in this case was not recorded by the executing court, which dismissed the Execution Petition (E.P.) as "not pressed." Thus, the Court held that the compromise could not be recognized, and the decree remained executable.

3. The effect of the compromise on the executability of the decree:
The Court referred to previous judgments, including Sultana Begum vs. Prem Chand Jain and Badamo Devi & Ors. vs. Sagar Sharma, to establish that an uncertified adjustment cannot be recognized by the executing court. The intention of the parties, as gathered from the compromise, was to keep the decree alive and enforce it after three years. Therefore, the decree remained executable.

4. Whether the new lease agreement provided protection under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960:
The respondent claimed protection under the Act due to the new lease agreement. However, the Court noted that the lease agreement was not registered as required by Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. Despite this, the Court did not base its decision on this ground as it was not raised in lower courts. The main reason for rejecting this contention was the lack of recording the compromise under Rule 2 of Order 21.

5. The validity of the executing court's and High Court's orders:
The executing court's order recalling its earlier directive for possession delivery was found erroneous, as was the High Court's confirmation of this order. The Supreme Court set aside these orders, directing the executing court to give effect to its initial order of November 16, 1993, for possession delivery.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the executing court to enforce the decree. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeals to the appellant.