1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7587/2008 (Sultan Ali Vs. Rent Tribunal & Ors.) Date of order : November 06th, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Suresh Shrimali, for the petitioner. Mr. Sajjan Singh, for caveator. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 18.9.2008 Annexure-12 so also the impugned order dated 7.7.2008 passed by Rent Appellate Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal respectively and the certificate dated 21.3.2008 Annexure-5 and prayed that the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 21 (3) and 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereafter, for short “the Act of 2001” only) read with Section 151 and 47 of C.P.C. may kindly be allowed. 2 According to the facts of the case, an application was filed by non-petitioner No.3 under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 for eviction in which the petitioner being respondent filed his reply. Thereafter the Tribunal framed points for determination. In this case, a compromise was arrived between the parties and on the basis of the said compromise, the Tribunal vide order dated 21.3.2008 issued a certificate for possession in favour of non- petitioner No.3. After issuance of certificate for possession in favour of non-petitioner No.3, an application was moved by the petitioner Section Section 21 (3) and Section 9 of the Act of 2001 read with Section 151 and 47 of C.P.C. in which certain grounds were raised with regard to the order passed by the Tribunal upon compromise arrived between the parties. It is argued by the petitioner before Rent Tribunal that the certificate of the possession issued by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the provisions of law. It is specifically stated that the order dated 21.3.2008 does not bear any ground which is enumerated under Section 9 of the Act, therefore, no eviction order can be passed contrary to the grounds enumerated under Section 9 of the Act. 3 Therefore, the order dated 21.3.2008 which is passed on the basis of the compromise is void abinitio. In the application, further it is stated by the petitioner that in the order impugned there is no mention of any consent with regard to ground of eviction, therefore, the so called order passed on the basis of compromise is contrary to Section 23 of the Contract Act, therefore, the certificate of possession issued on the basis of compromise dated 21.3.2008 is abinitio void. Therefore, no execution can be made on the basis of the impugned order dated 21.3.2008. After issuing the notice upon the said application filed by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal after discussing entire facts of the case and following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no expressed provision under Section 15 (6) of the Act in which it is specifically provided that the Rent Tribunal during the course of such hearing may hold such summary enquiry as it deems necessary and decide the petition. The Rent Tribunal may also make efforts for conciliation and settlement of dispute between the parties. Therefore, if any certificate for possession has been issued on the basis of the compromise arrived between the parties then under Section 15 (6) of the Act of 2001, it has binding force upon both the parties. None of the parties can be allowed to raise voice against the said order which is passed on the basis of the compromise. 4 So also, after compromise it is not open for any of the parties to refute or to deny the compromise upon which the order has been made and certificate for possession has been issued. It is observed in the impugned order dated 7.7.2008 by learned Tribunal that the compromise was filed by both the parties and it was executed and order was passed, thereafter, certificate for possession was issued, therefore, it cannot be said that there were no grounds available which are enumerated under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. The order of learned Rent Tribunal which is passed upon the application filed by the petitioner was further appealed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur by way of filing Civil Appeal No.10/2008, that too was rejected by Appellate Tribunal by discussing entire facts and law vide order dated 18.9.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the Courts below have committed an error while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in which a specific ground was taken by the petitioner that the order dated 21.3.2008 does not bear any grounds enumerated under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. Therefore, the certificate of possession issued on the basis of the said compromise cannot be executed. Further, it is argued that both the Court 5 below have committed an error while rejecting the plea of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside both the orders passed by Rent Tribunal as well as by Appellate Rent Tribunal because both the orders are not in consonance with law. Learned counsel for caveator-respondent submitted that in this case, the petitioner's plea is dishonest plea. It is not disputed by the petitioner that earlier order was passed on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties but at the time of execution he is raising voice and challenging the order passed by Rent Tribunal on the basis of the compromise arrived between the parties. Further, it is argued that when it is expressly provided under Section 15 (6) of the Act of 2001 that to secure the ends of litigation, the Rent Tribunal was having jurisdiction to make efforts for conciliation and settlement of the dispute between the parties and in this case admittedly, the order of eviction has been passed on the basis of the compromise and that order was not challenged by way of any appeal by the petitioner, then, at the time of execution such dishonest plea has not force of law, which requires any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. In this case admittedly, the petitioner is accepting that the order was passed by the Rent Tribunal on the basis of the compromise filed by both the parties before the Rent Tribunal and the said compromise was accepted vide order dated 21.3.2008. It is nowhere stated by the petitioner that the said compromise was arrived at between the parties under any threat or duress. The case of the petitioner is that order passed by the Tribunal is not in consonance with Section 9 of the Act of 2001. If it is so, then, in my opinion, the order passed upon the compromise by both the parties on 21.3.2008 upon which the certificate of possession was issued was to be challenged by the petitioner. Admittedly, the said order dated 21.3.2008 passed on the basis of compromise was challenged but now petitioner is challenging the certificate of possession dated 21.3.2008 issued by the Rent Tribunal on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties on the ground that no ground is satisfied which is enumerated in Section 90 of the Act. Meaning thereby, still the petitioner is not raising any ground with regard to legality and illegality of the compromise but he is pointing out trial court's error in the order dated 21.3.2008. In my opinion, such 7 type of plea at the time of execution proceedings by way of filing such an application is not required to be entertained because there is no allegations in the writ petition or in the application that the compromise was made by the petitioner under any threat or duress. The conduct of the petitioner by way of filing an application at the time of execution of the order, which is based on compromise itself is questionable. Therefore, for the end of unnecessary litigation no interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is required in the concurrent finding of the Rent Tribunal as well as by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun