NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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A compromise reached between parties, leading to petition dismissed as withdrawn, cannot be enforced by the court under the aegis of a contempt petition.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