Eviction clause in consent decree upheld as concession, not penalty. Rent control laws prevail.

The Supreme Court held that the eviction clause in the consent decree was a concession, not penal. It clarified that specific rent control legislation prevails over general property laws. As the tenant failed to comply with the decree terms, the eviction clause was enforceable. The Court set aside lower court orders, directing execution of the decree. The decision did not impact any new developments between the parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Executability of the consent decree.
2. Nature of the eviction clause in the consent decree (whether penal or concessional).
3. Applicability of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
4. Interpretation and application of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Executability of the Consent Decree:
The appellant (landlord) filed an eviction suit for possession of the premises on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit was settled with terms that included a concession for the tenant if arrears were paid by a stipulated date. The tenant failed to comply, leading to execution proceedings by the landlord. The Executing Court issued a warrant for possession, but the Appellate Court dismissed the execution proceedings. The High Court initially remitted the matter back to the Appellate Court, which again dismissed the execution proceedings. The High Court upheld this dismissal, leading the landlord to approach the Supreme Court.

2. Nature of the Eviction Clause in the Consent Decree:
The Supreme Court examined whether the eviction clause in the consent decree was penal in nature or merely a concession. The Court concluded that the terms of the consent decree were clear and unambiguous. The tenant was given a concession that if he paid the arrears by a specified date, the landlord would not execute the decree for possession. This was not penal but a concession. The Court illustrated this with two hypothetical situations, explaining that a clause granting benefit for compliance cannot be considered penal.

3. Applicability of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
The High Court had relied on Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to grant relief against forfeiture. However, the Supreme Court clarified that after the enactment of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents Act, cases governed under this Act must be resolved in accordance with its provisions and not under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the tenant cannot claim double protection by invoking provisions of the Transfer of Property Act when specific rent control legislation applies.

4. Interpretation and Application of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents Act:
The Supreme Court analyzed Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents Act, which provides conditions under which a tenant can be evicted for non-payment of rent. The Court noted that the tenant had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 12(3)(b) by not paying the arrears by the stipulated date. The Court held that the tenant's failure to avail of the concession granted in the consent decree resulted in forfeiture, making the eviction clause enforceable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, directing the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree. The Court clarified that any subsequent developments creating a new relationship between the parties would not be affected by this order. The appeal was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.

---