Rent Control and Eviction

Costs

— Exemplary costs — Due to the tenants having protracted the litigation indefinitely by raising frivolous and vexatious contentions regarding compromise in question and going back on solemn undertaking given to court that they would vacate the premises, conduct of tenants deprecated and costs of Rs 25,000 awarded against them, (2006) 5 SCC 566-A

Rent Control and Eviction

Tenancy

— Termination of tenancy — When occurs — Date given for vacation of premises in undertaking for the same — Measure of damages/compensation for occupation after such date — Undertaking to vacate premises by certain date — Tenant instead of vacating on time, prolonging the litigation — Supreme Court confirming consent decree of eviction and awarding mesne profits to landlord from date on which tenant had undertaken to vacate premises till date possession was handed over, (2006) 5 SCC 566-B

Rent Control and Eviction

Compromise/Consent decree

— Nature of and means of enforcement — Settlement under consent decree being that tenant will vacate the premises within specified time — Nature of and means for enforcement — Held, such settlement means that possession could be recovered in execution of such decree in event of tenant failing to vacate within time — Such a settlement falls under first part of Or. 23 R. 3 CPC — On the other hand if both parties or plaintiff submits to court that tenant has handed over vacant possession, it would fall under second part of Or. 23 R. 3 — In the latter case there will be disposal of the suit, but no <169>executable<170> decree — In present case, case fell under first part and not second part of Or. 23 R. 3 as erroneously held by High Court — Consent decree, upheld, (2006) 5 SCC 566-C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— Or. 23 R. 3 — Two parts of, analysed and distinction between, explained — Nature of consent decree passed under either part — First part pertaining to adjustment of suit, in whole or in part — Second part pertaining to satisfaction of suit, in whole or in part — Held, where matter falls under first part, there is a promise or promises agreed to be performed or executed and there is a subsisting obligation that can enforced by levying execution — Whereas, where matter falls under second part, what is reported is a completed action or settlement out of court putting an end to the dispute, and resultant decree recording the satisfaction is not capable of being enforced by levying execution, (2006) 5 SCC 566-D

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— Or. 23 R. 3 and Or. 3 R. 1 — Words <169>signed by parties<170> — <169>By parties<170> — Scope of — Held, said phrase refers not only to parties-in-person, but their attorney-holders or duly authorised pleaders as well, (2006) 5 SCC 566-E

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— Or. 23 R. 3 — <169>Lawful agreement or compromise in writing<170> — <169>In writing<170> — Scope of — Need for formal instrument, if any — Statements of parties or their counsel made in court, held, would be enough — It is not necessary that a compromise should be reduced into writing in the form of an <169>instrument<170> (which is nothing but writing of a formal nature) — Statements of parties or their counsel, recorded on oath, read over and accepted by the parties or their counsel to be correct and then signed by parties or their counsel, would be a valid compromise in writing and signed by the parties under Or. 23 R. 3, (2006) 5 SCC 566-F

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— Or. 12 R. 6 — Judgment on admission — What is — Consent decree when amounts to — Defendants failing to lead evidence in support of their case, though given repeated opportunities to do so — Only submission of defendants being an undertaking to court that they would vacate tenanted premises by a certain date — Court passing consent decree in terms thereof — Nature of such decree — Held, in such case, no evidence having been led to refute plaintiffs' claim, necessary conclusion is that defendants admitted plaintiffs' claim — Said decree can also be construed as a judgment on admission, (2006) 5 SCC 566-G

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— Or. 12 R. 1 — Admission what is — Defendants not leading any evidence to oppose case of plaintiffs, though given repeated opportunities to do so — Held, in such a case the necessary conclusion is that defendants admitted the plaintiffs' claim, (2006) 5 SCC 566-H

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— Or. 23 R. 3, Or. 43 R. 1(m) [as deleted] and S. 96(3) — Consent decree — Nature and validity of — Mode(s) of recourse available against — Held, no appeal is maintainable against a consent decree in view of specific bar in S. 96(3) — No appeal is maintainable against order of court recording or refusing to record compromise in light of deletion of Or. 43 R. 1(m) — Consent decree can only be set aside on application made under Or. 23 R. 3 proviso on the ground that there was no compromise — Reasons for, explained, (2006) 5 SCC 566-I

Constitution of India

— Art. 136 — Practice and procedure — Pleading and particulars — New plea — When may be raised for the first time before Supreme Court — Held, where a plea does not involve any question of fact or amendment of pleading or is purely one of law, particularly in relation to the jurisdiction of the (appellate) court, such a plea can be raised before Supreme Court for the first time — Plea as to jurisdiction of appellate court is not a contention which requires pleading or leading of evidence, but is evident from the record, (2006) 5 SCC 566-J