AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1985 ::1996 AIR SCW 2365 ::1996 (9) SCC 292 ::1997 ( ) HRR 35 ::(1996) 2 ICC 751 ::1996 (2) RentLR 56 ::(1996) 4 JT 597 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Gauhati)

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. M. Punchhi, Sujata Manohar , JJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.47, O.23 R.3— Execution - Compromise decree - Terms of decree providing that defendants would be liable to be evicted after expiry of ten years from suit property 'by appropriate action in Court of law' - Defendants cannot be evicted in execution of compromise decree - Fresh suit for ejectment as permissible in law - Should be filed. Decision of Gauhati High Court, Reversed. Where the compromise decree between the parties provided that the defendants would be liable to be evicted from the suit land after expiry of ten years 'by appropriate action in Court of law', the plaintiffs eject the defendants from the suit land in their possession by taking appropriate legal action by filing a suit for ejectment or in any other manner as may be permissible in law; but not by applying for execution of the compromise decree. A tenant who may otherwise be liable to ejectment, may be protected by provisions of the Rent Act or by any other provision of law. This issue can only be adjudicated properly in an appropriate proceeding and not in the execution of a decree. Had the intention been to allow the defendant only permissive possession for a period of ten years, and ejectment thereafter in execution of the compromise decree, the decree would have so provided. It was more so when in a subsequent suit between parties, the H....