Case: Nai Bahu Vs. Ramnarayan and Others

give effect to it.12. According to Mr. Sanghi when the house was let for non- residential purpose the appellant cannot succeed in ejecting the tenant from the house for a composite purpose of residence as well as business and he submits that the principles laid down in Dr. Gopal Dass Verma (supra) fully support him.In Dr. Gopal Dass Verma (supra) this Court was dealing with the provisions of Delhi &Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (briefly the Delhi Act). Section 2(g) defines premises under that Act thus" Premises means any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be let, separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, "We may contrast the definition of accommodation in the M.P. Act with which we are concerned. Under section 3(a) of the M.P. Act, "accommodation" means-(x) any land which is not being used for cultivation,(y) any building or part of a building, and it includes-(1) garden, open land and out houses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of a building;(2) any furniture supplied by the landlord for us e in such building or part of a building;(3) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof, )."13. It is significant that in the Del hi Act intention to let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose is expressly mentioned under section 2(g) thereof. The principle underlying the scheme for letting separately for different uses is reflected in the Second Schedule to the Delhi Act in both Parts A and B (see paras 3 to 5 both in parts A and B). The said differentiation of purpose for separate letting does not find such significant importance in the M.P. Act as has been found by this Court in the Delhi Act Mr. Sanghi, however, draws our attention to section 4(d) of the M.P. Act which provides that if the tenant has done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, that will furnish a ground for eviction under the M. P. Act. He also relies upon s. 6 of the M.P. Act where there is provision for compensation in the case of eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (h) of section 4 in case of non-residential accommodation. Counsel therefore submits that although the word separately is absent in the definition of "accommodation" in the M.P. Act there is no difference whatsoever in the actual intent of the provisions in the M.P. Act to warrant a departure from the principles laid down in Dr. Gopal Dass Verma (supra)We are unable to accept the above submission. It is clear that under the Delhi Act the scheme is significantly different from that of the M.P. Act. The definition of "premises" in the Delhi Act is a pointer. Under the M.P. Act a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non- residential accommodation if he genuinely requires the same for his business purpose. But the position is not the same under the provisions of the Delhi Act where the landlord cannot ask for eviction of a tenant from the premises let for commercial use even if the former requires it bona fide for his own business purpose. The landlord may see k eviction of the tenant on other grounds but not on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own business under the Delhi Act. This brings out the difference between the scheme underlying the two Acts and Mr. Sanghi cannot call in aid the decision in Dr. Gopal Dass Verma (supra) in support of his submission. The High Court was not right in its conclusion that the decree was passed in contravention of the provisions of the Act.14. Mr. Sanghi also submits that the decree in this case incorporated a lease for five years and in absence of registration under section 17(1) (d) of the Registration Act the decree is invalid and cannot be acted upon. As already pointed out this objection is untenable in view of the decision of this Court in Girdharilal (supra). The question would turn on the terms of the compromise. After a careful consideration of the terms of the compromise and the whole tenor of the compromise petition it is absolutely clear that there was no intention to create a lease between the parties. It is the dominant intention of the document which must guide the construction of its contents. In the recitals of the compromise petition in three places it is stated categorically that "the plaintiff shall be entitled to execute her decree against the defendants". There was therefore, no intention to create a lease with regard to any portion of the property although certain arrangements had been entered for the-intermediate occupation of a certain portion before vacating that portion after expiry of five years. The few alternations and improvements agreed upon by consent were merely an arrangement for vacating two floors and in order to vacate the remaining portion after using it for five years. There was no intention whatsoever to create a new lease. There is, therefore, no question of registration of the decree. The submission is devoid of substance. The High Court is, therefore, clearly wrong in holding that a lease was created by the compromise and that the decree was ineffective on account of non-registration.There is nothing in the M. P. Act to bar an eviction from a building if a non-residential accommodation is genuinely required not only for non-residential use but also a portion of it bona fide for personal residence. We are clearly of opinion that the compromise decree in this case is a lawful decree of eviction founded on permissible statutory ground and there are sufficient materials to show that the trial court , applied its mind and was satisfied that a valid decree under the M.P. Act could be passed.15.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Having examined the pleadings, the terms of the compromise as well as the statement of counsel of either party recorded by the trial court and the resultant order passed thereafter, we are unable to accede to the submission that the court did not apply its mind to the relevant question that was necessary to be considered at that stage at the time of passing theis true that a decree for eviction of a tenant cannot be passed solely on the basis of a compromise between the parties (see K. K. Chari v. R. N. Seshadri "([1973] 3 S..C.R. 691.). The Court is to be satisfied whether a statutory ground for eviction has been pleaded which the tenant ])as admitted by the compromise. Thus dispensing with further proof, on account of the compromise, the court is to be satisfied about compliance with the statutory requirement on the totally of facts of a particular case bearing in mind the entire circumstances from the stage of pleadings upto the stage when the compromise is effected.When a compromise decree is challenged as a nullity in the course of its execution the executing court can examine relevant materials to find out whether statutory grounds for eviction existed in If the pleadings and other materials on the record make out a prima facie case about the existence of statutory grounds for eviction a compromise decree cannot be held to be invalid and the executing court will have to give effect tois significant that in the Del hi Act intention to let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose is expressly mentioned under section 2(g) thereof. The principle underlying the scheme for letting separately for different uses is reflected in the Second Schedule to the Delhi Act in both Parts A and B (see paras 3 to 5 both in parts A and B). The said differentiation of purpose for separate letting does not find such significant importance in the M.P. Act as has been found by this Court in the Delhiis clear that under the Delhi Act the scheme is significantly different from that of the M.P. Act. The definition of "premises" in the Delhi Act is a pointer. Under the M.P. Act a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non- residential accommodation if he genuinely requires the same for his business purpose. But the position is not the same under the provisions of the Delhi Act where the landlord cannot ask for eviction of a tenant from the premises let for commercial use even if the former requires it bona fide for his own business purpose. The landlord may see k eviction of the tenant on other grounds but not on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own business under the Delhi Act. This brings out the difference between the scheme underlying the two Acts and Mr. Sanghi cannot call in aid the decision in Dr. Gopal Dass Verma (supra) in support of his submission. The High Court was not right in its conclusion that the decree was passed in contravention of the provisions of thealready pointed out this objection is untenable in view of the decision of this Court in Girdharilal (supra). The question would turn on the terms of the compromise. After a careful consideration of the terms of the compromise and the whole tenor of the compromise petition it is absolutely clear that there was no intention to create a lease between the parties. It is the dominant intention of the document which must guide the construction of its contents. In the recitals of the compromise petition in three places it is stated categorically that "the plaintiff shall be entitled to execute her decree against the defendants". There was therefore, no intention to create a lease with regard to any portion of the property although certain arrangements had been entered for the-intermediate occupation of a certain portion before vacating that portion after expiry of five years. The few alternations and improvements agreed upon by consent were merely an arrangement for vacating two floors and in order to vacate the remaining portion after using it for five years. There was no intention whatsoever to create a new lease. There is, therefore, no question of registration of the decree. The submission is devoid of substance. The High Court is, therefore, clearly wrong in holding that a lease was created by the compromise and that the decree was ineffective on account of non-registration.There is nothing in the M. P. Act to bar an eviction from a building if a non-residential accommodation is genuinely required not only for non-residential use but also a portion of it bona fide for personal residence. We are clearly of opinion that the compromise decree in this case is a lawful decree of eviction founded on permissible statutory ground and there are sufficient materials to show that the trial court , applied its mind and was satisfied that a valid decree under the M.P. Act could bep.m. as mesne profits to the appellant within the first week of the month due. Failure to pay mesne profits as aforesaid will enable theto execute the decree without reference to this Court and the stay of the decree will automatically stand vacated.