In Brief
A landlord obtained a compromise order in a tenancy eviction suit in which the tenant agreed to vacate by a fixed date and pay user charges. When the tenant failed to vacate, the landlord filed an execution petition, but the tenant objected on grounds including alleged fraud and the absence of a formal written decree. The High Court set aside the execution, holding it unmaintainable without a formal decree and directing the landlord to apply under Section 152 of the Code. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a compromise order has the effect of a decree during the interregnum period under Order 20 Rule 6A(2) of the Code, permitting execution to proceed. The Court clarified that the correct remedy to draw a decree is application under Section 151, not Section 152, and rejected the tenant's frivolous objections as dilatory tactics.",
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.