SC: SARFAESI Act Was Not Applicable in Nagaland Before its 2021 Adoption, Dismisses Creditor’s Plea  ||  SC: Lis Pendens Applies To Money Suits on Mortgaged Property, Including Ex Parte Proceedings  ||  Kerala HC: Civil Courts Cannot Grant Injunctions in NCLT Matters and Such Orders Can Be Set Aside  ||  Bombay High Court: Technical Breaks to Temporary Employees Cannot Deny Maternity Leave Benefits  ||  NCLAT: Appellate Jurisdiction Limited to Orders Deciding Parties’ Rights, Not Procedural Directions  ||  NCLAT: Personal Guarantors Involved In NCLT Proceedings Can Appeal Against Insolvency Admission  ||  Supreme Court: Foreign Companies’ Head Office Expenses in India are Capped under Section 44C  ||  SC Directs Trial Courts to Systematically Catalogue Witnesses and Evidence in Criminal Judgments  ||  SC Calls For Sensitising Future Generations on Equality in Marriage to Combat Dowry Practices  ||  SC: Separate Suits Against Confirmed Auction Sales are Barred; Remedy Available under Sec 47    

Ram Gopal Sood v. Jai Pal Chauhan - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (02 Jun 2016)

Landlord flummoxed by distinction between compromise and consent order

MANU/HP/0437/2016

Tenancy

A compromise reached between parties, leading to petition dismissed as withdrawn, cannot be enforced by the court under the aegis of a contempt petition.

In the instant rent control case, landlord and tenant entered into a compromise that he would vacate premises or pay high rent for continued occupation. The landlord subsequently withdrew his petition before the Rent Controller for eviction. Later, the tenant refused to hand over possession, claiming instead that no obligation existed in the compromise to hand over possession.

The court, concurring, was sceptical of contempt proceedings against the ‘order’ of the Rent Controller as “the Court below never added its mandate to the compromise and rather proceeded to dismiss”. It concluded, “There is a clear cut distinction between a compromise arrived at between the parties or a consent order passed by the court at the instance of the parties and a clear and categorical undertaking given by any of the parties.” Since no court ruling was obtained in the matter, contempt proceedings were not the suitable remedy.

Relevant : Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka & Anr. v. Kapurchand Ltd. reported in MANU/MH/0014/1950 Babu Ram Gupta versus Sudhir Bhasin and another MANU/SC/0053/1979 Rama Narang versus Ramesh Narang and another MANU/SC/1484/2007

Tags : RENT CONTROL   COMPROMISE   CONSENT ORDER   UNDERTAKING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved