Case Note & Summary
This appeal by certificate arose from a suit for eviction filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants against the respondent tenant under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The suit was instituted on February 7, 1956, on three grounds: bona fide requirement of the landlord, the tenant owning a suitable alternative house, and default in payment of rent. The tenant filed a written statement denying the allegations, and issues were framed on April 4, 1956. On June 5, 1956, the parties filed a joint application stating that a compromise had been reached, agreeing to a decree for ejectment executable after December 31, 1958, fixation of standard rent, and adjustment of the deposit. On July 6, 1956, the trial court recorded the compromise and passed a decree in terms thereof. The tenant did not vacate by the agreed date and instead, on February 16, 1959, filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the decree as nullity on the ground that it was passed in contravention of Section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, which prohibits eviction unless the court is satisfied of the existence of statutory grounds. The Sub-Judge and the Senior Sub-Judge rejected the challenge, but the High Court of Punjab, Circuit Bench at Delhi, in revision, held the decree a nullity as the order on compromise did not indicate that any statutory ground existed. The landlords appealed to the Supreme Court. The sole legal issue was whether the compromise decree violated Section 13(1) of the Act and was therefore a nullity. The appellants argued that the decree was valid as passed on a compromise, while the respondent contended that the court was forbidden from passing an eviction decree without recording satisfaction of statutory grounds. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decision in Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass, held that Section 13(1) imposes an absolute prohibition against passing a decree unless the court is satisfied that a ground for eviction exists. The court observed that the decree passed solely on the basis of the compromise without such satisfaction was a nullity and could not be enforced in execution. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction and Compromise Decrees - Nullity for Non-Compliance - Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, Section 13(1) - The dispute pertained to eviction of a tenant on grounds of bona fide requirement, ownership of another house, and default in rent. The trial court passed a decree in terms of a compromise without recording that any statutory ground existed. The High Court held the decree a nullity, and the Supreme Court affirmed, following Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass. Held that a decree passed without the court satisfying itself of the existence of statutory grounds is a nullity and cannot be enforced. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a compromise decree for eviction passed without the court satisfying itself that any of the statutory grounds under Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 existed is a nullity and cannot be enforced.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the compromise decree was a nullity as it was passed in contravention of Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, following Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- A decree for eviction passed on a compromise without the court recording satisfaction of any statutory ground under Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act
- 1952 is a nullity and cannot be executed
- The court is forbidden from passing an eviction decree unless it is satisfied that a ground for eviction exists
- The prohibition in Section 13(1) is absolute and must be strictly complied with
