M/S Sifang Automation INDIA PVT LTD vs. Sri T M Rajakumar

Facts

This is a Regular First Appeal filed by M/s Sifang Automation India Pvt. Ltd. (appellant/tenant) against a judgment and decree dated May 25, 2021, passed by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in OS.No.6185/2018. The original suit was for ejectment/eviction, and the impugned decree partly decreed the suit. The appeal concerns a dispute between a tenant and a landlord, Sri T.M. Rajakumar (respondent). The appellant filed a Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, signed by both parties and their respective counsels, outlining the terms of settlement. The appellant, a tenant, agreed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises by March 24, 2024, and to pay rent regularly. The respondent, the landlord, agreed to grant this time, subject to the appellant fulfilling the payment obligations.

Held

The Court held that the Compromise Petition filed by the appellant and respondent under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC was valid, voluntary, and fair. There was no illegality vitiating the settlement. The Court found no hindrance in recording the compromise and accordingly took the Compromise Petition on record. The appeal was disposed of in terms of the settlement. The operative directions included modifying the decree as per the settlement terms, with the appellant undertaking to vacate by March 24, 2024, pay rent regularly, and increase rent by 10% plus GST for two years. The respondent was at liberty to execute the decree if the appellant defaulted in rent payment for two consecutive months. The Court also directed the office to draw the decree accordingly and refund the permissible court fee to the appellant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should record and modify the decree in terms of the Compromise Petition filed by the appellant and respondent under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC? The appellant argued that a compromise has been reached between the parties, voluntarily and amicably, and prayed for the appeal to be disposed of in terms of this settlement. They highlighted the undertakings given by the appellant regarding vacating the premises, payment of rent, and rent increase, including GST. The respondent, through the Compromise Petition, indicated no objection to granting time for vacating the premises, subject to the appellant's adherence to the terms, and prayed for the decree to be modified accordingly. The Court was asked to consider if the settlement was valid, voluntary, and fair, and if there were any impediments to recording it.