High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Ram Gopal Sood v. Jai Pal Chauhan

MANU/HP/0437/2016

02.06.2016

Tenancy

Landlord flummoxed by distinction between compromise and consent order

A compromise reached between parties, leading to petition dismissed as withdrawn, cannot be enforced by the court under the aegis of a contempt petition.

In the instant rent control case, landlord and tenant entered into a compromise that he would vacate premises or pay high rent for continued occupation. The landlord subsequently withdrew his petition before the Rent Controller for eviction. Later, the tenant refused to hand over possession, claiming instead that no obligation existed in the compromise to hand over possession.

The court, concurring, was sceptical of contempt proceedings against the ‘order’ of the Rent Controller as “the Court below never added its mandate to the compromise and rather proceeded to dismiss”. It concluded, “There is a clear cut distinction between a compromise arrived at between the parties or a consent order passed by the court at the instance of the parties and a clear and categorical undertaking given by any of the parties.” Since no court ruling was obtained in the matter, contempt proceedings were not the suitable remedy.

Relevant

Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka & Anr. v. Kapurchand Ltd. reported in MANU/MH/0014/1950
Babu Ram Gupta versus Sudhir Bhasin and another MANU/SC/0053/1979
Rama Narang versus Ramesh Narang and another MANU/SC/1484/2007

Tags : rent control compromise consent order undertaking

Share :