Allahabad High Court: Vivek Kumar Birla, J., expressed:

“…a party cannot be permitted to blow hot – blow cold, where he knowingly accepts the benefit of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself.”

Petition was filed challenging the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Courts, Bulandshahar.

Petitioners were the tenants of a shop of which the initially the tenancy was with the grandfather of the petitioners. Later after the demise of grandfather, the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. Jugmandar Das Jain received the shop by means of inheritance.

Thereafter, respondents-landlords initiated the proceedings under Section 21(1)A of Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972  against the legal heir.

Crux of the Petitioners Argument:

If the compromise decree is contrary to statutory provisions, the same is a nullity and cannot be executed.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Original tenant was in possession of a shop 7.0 ft x 23 ft and in the release application filed on the ground f personal need of the family, he agreed to remain in possession of the shop 5.6 ft wide x 12 ft. deep only, which was to be handed over to him by the landlord after the Court Order.

Comprise between the parties reflected that the old rent of Rs 18 per month was to continue. The original tenant had clearly stated that he had only daughters and no son, he, therefore, agreed in the wisdom that he will remain in possession of the shop till his lifetime and thereafter, the tenancy shall not devolve on his legal heirs.

Bench noted that in the terms of compromise, it was clearly stated that there was a clear understanding that neither his daughters nor their husbands shall claim any tenancy over the shop left in possession of Raj Bahadur Jain and shall hand over the possession to the landlord and if they failed to do so, the landlord will be at liberty to take possession through Court.

Petitioners being daughters of the tenant were obviously beneficiary, maybe indirectly, of such compromise as the tenant Raj Bahadur Jain continued in peaceful possession of the said shop till his death as the proceeding of the release application did not proceed further on the basis of such compromise.

For about 16 years, no challenge was raised to the above-mentioned compromise.

“…in cases where protection under a Rent Act is available, no eviction can be ordered unless ground seeking eviction is made out, even if parties had entered into a compromise and that the invalidity on that count can even be raised in execution.” 

Whether petitioner can take shelter from the above law in the present set of facts and circumstances?

Bench opined that a party cannot be permitted blow hot – blow cold, where he knowingly accepts the benefit of a contract or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself.

For the above position of law, Bench referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470.

Net effect of the Supreme Court decision in Raghunath Prasad Pande v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 5 SCC 594 is that once the compromise decree has been acted upon, a party cannot be permitted to go back from the same and the same is not liable to be set aside.

In the instant case, property was released in part and the old tenant had entered into a compromise. It has been added that he was the sole tenant and had every right to enter into compromise about his tenancy rights. The compromise continued for about 10 years till the death of the tenant Raj Bahadur Jain and they enjoyed the benefits arising out of such compromise.

Since the original tenant remained in possession over the agreed part of the accommodation during his lifetime, now the legal heirs cannot come forward and say that they are a statutory tenant and the said compromise was a nullity as they were not a party or that the same was contrary to law.

With regard to injunction suit, decree of a civil court granting permanent injunction cannot override the proceedings under the provisions of UP Act 13 of 1972 between the landlord and tenant.

Compromise was validly entered between the landlord and the sole tenant, who enjoyed the fruits or the benefits of the same.

Concluding the matter, Bench decided that :

  • Tenant-petitioner shall handover the peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 31.8.2021;
  • Tenant-petitioner shall file the undertaking before the Court below to the said effect within two weeks from the date of passing of this order
  • Tenant-petitioner shall pay damages at Rs 2,000/- per month by 07th day of every succeeding month and continue to deposit the same in the Court below till 31.8.2021 or till the date he vacates the premises, whichever is earlier and the landlord is at liberty to withdraw the said amount
  • Tenant-petitioner shall also state that he will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the premises in dispute
  • Tenant-petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question till the aforesaid period.

[Anshu Jain v. Suresh Prakash, 2021 SCC OnLine All 217, decided on 10-03-2021]

Advocates before the parties:

Counsel for Petitioner: Nagendra Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent : Sanjai Srivastava, Ajit Kumar,Vivek Srivastava

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

One comment

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.