1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 418 OF 2009 Mayaben Chhotalal Adesara ...Applicant. Vs. Umesh Amrutlal Shaha & Anr. . .. Respondents. ..... Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, for the Applicant. Mr. R.S. Apte, i/b Mr. M.S. Lagu, for the Respondents. ..... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 23 rd APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. This Civil Revision Application challenges an Order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the District Judge-12 Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2006. By the Order under challenge the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree dated 5.6.2006 in Civil Suit No.550 of 2003. 2. The Petitioner before me is the original Appellant/Defendant where as the Respondents are the original Plaintiffs in the Civil Suit. 3. The suit was filed for recovery of the possession of three rooms admeasuring 300 sq.ft. of house No.124/2, Somwar Peth, within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. These premises are described more 2 particularly described in the plaint. 4. The rent was Rs.175/- p.m. and the taxes levied by the Municipal Corporation from time to time. 5. The Court below had decreed the suit of the Respondents on the ground that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent and that the landlord required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide. Further, the Court below concluded that Comparative/Relative Hardship could be caused to the landlord in case, the decree is refused. 6. During the course of challenge to this decree in the Civil Revision Application, it was suggested to both sides that if some arrangement could be made so that the premises available in the same building can be occupied by the Petitioner/Applicant tenant and he would vacate the suit premises. This arrangement was suggested in the facts peculiar to this case because it was pointed out that in the same building the landlord has another premises which may become available. 7. Parties took time to negotiate and later informed me that the matter is amicably settled. They wish to put in terms. 8. The terms are finalized. They are tendered, and save and except the quantum of rent for the alternate premises, everything else is agreed. 9. After some arguments, both sides leave it to me in so far as determination of monthly rent. They have signed the terms. The terms are 3 signed by one Yogesh Chhotalal Adesara. It is stated that although the signature of power of attorney is Y.C. Soni his name is Yogesh Chhotalal Adesara and it is only the signature which uses the name Soni. The power of attorney is present in Court. Identification is not in dispute. Shri Kulkarni states that the terms are signed by him as power of attorney of the Petitioner/tenant. Shri Kulkarni identifies the signature and places on record a Xerox copy of the “Learning Licence” together with photograph of the said power of attorney holder. 10. Equally, the signature of the Respondents-landlord/Plaintiff on the terms are identified by the Advocate on record Shri M.S. Lagu. 11. The terms record that the Petitioners will shift to the alternate premises and vacate the existing premises in her possession. Alternate premises admeasure 400 sq.ft. and they are more particularly described in Clause-1 of the consent terms. In other words, the decree for possession of the suit premises, as passed is confirmed but in lieu of tenant vacating the existing premises which has been offered alternate premises on tenancy which would be for the duration of six years. The security deposit lying with the landlords/Respondents shall be retained as security for the tenancy rights of the alternate premises for the aforesaid period. The consent terms record such arrangement. In the presence of parties the terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 4 12. I am satisfied that the terms fully record the understanding of the parties and have been arrived at without force or pressure. The representatives/power of attorney holders are present in the Court and in their presence the terms are taken on record. 13. Further, in their presence it is directed that the tenancy in respect of the alternate premises would be for a period of six years and the rent which will have to be paid per month is quantified at Rs.1100/- per month inclusive of taxes. The security deposit will be retained as a security for the alternate premises. 14. The Petitioner states that she will hand over existing premises after alternate premises as set out in the Clause-1 of the consent terms are repaired and made habitable. Presently, the landlords have succeeded against the tenant in those premises (Nijampurkar) and the landlords will recover vacant possession by executing the decree against Nijampurkar and thereafter permit repairs to the said premises. For enabling the Petitioner to carry out repairs, the landlords-Respondents would hand over keys of the said premises to the Petitioner. 15. After receipt of such keys and after repair work as set out in the consent terms are completed within period stipulated therein, Petitioner would hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the existing premises to the Respondents. 5 16. Respective obligations as set out in the consent terms have been agreed upon by the parties and there is no impediment in disposing of this Civil Revision Application by taking consent terms on record. They are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. There shall be an order in terms of consent terms. The decree of the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court is maintained but with modifications as set out in the consent terms. 17. Needless to state that the stipulation in the consent terms shall form part of the decree and orders/directions of this Court and in addition to executing the same in accordance with law the Petitioner would have to face consequences for not abiding by the same within the period set out in the consent terms. Order accordingly. 18. Petitioner states that within period of two weeks from today an undertaking would be filed in this Court stating therein that the physical possession of the existing premises is with the Petitioner and apart from herself and her family members non others are occupying the same, and that no third party rights in any manner would be created in the said premises, and that agreed rent in respect of existing premises shall be paid till the alternate premises are taken over by the Petitioner. The undertaking to also state that the Petitioner would hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the existing as also alternate premises within the period specified in the consent terms. 6 19. Civil Revision Application is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)