Plaintiff filed an ejectment suit, the case was held for two years after that the case was compromised under order 23 rule 3 of the CPC before the court of the small causes judge.
In the compromised petition saying that, it is agreed to give the scheduled shop to the defendants on lease initially for a period of ten years and there after the same could be renewed by mutual concent of both the parties ( Note : This was made before the court ) and also a fresh unregistered deed executed followed by compromised petition mentioning the lease may be extended with mutual concent after 10 years.
Now again plaintiff filed an ejectment suit under order transfer of property act (106) saying the lease period come to an end .
It seems that the suit between Anand Nivas pvt ltd versus Anandji kalyanji pedhi and others (1964) 4 SCR 892, there is no bar in law to a statutory tenant entering into a fresh contract of tenancy with the land lord.
As a defendant, asking what is the value for compromised petition under order 23 rule 3 of the CPC made before the court ? and requesting your opinion with verdict if any.
Please advice.
