LAXMIBAI Vs. AMBAJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision petition is the tenant in occupation of a premises bearing CTS No. 1635/69 situated in Gadag. The respondents purchased the said property under a sale deed dated 19-12-1969 from its previous owner. Thereafter they terminated the tenancy of the petitioner by issue of a notice as required by law and filed a petition in HRC.No.15/71 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Gadag, for eviction of petitioner. In the course of their petition, they alleged that they required the premises reasonably and bona fide for their use and occupation, and that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by them for the purpose of demolition and such demolition was to be made for erecting a new building in place of the premises sought to be demolished. It was also allleged that the petitioner was in arrears of rent. In effect they based their case on clauses (a), (h) and (j) under proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S.21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) . The petitioner resisted the said petition. In the course of the trial, the respondents examined two witnesses and the petitioner examined herself as a witness. Six documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. On the basis of the evidence placed before him, the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to be evicted on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (h) and (j) under proviso to S.21(1) of the Act. The learned Munsiff directed the petitioner to hand-over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents within three months from the date of the order i.e. within 6-7-1972. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff, the petitioner filed an appeal under S.48 of the Act before the District Judge, Dharwar in HRCA No.51/72. The appeal was filed beyond time. Along with the appeal, an application, IA. No.1, was filed for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. He also filed another application, IA. No.2, praying for the stay of the execution of the order passed by the learned Munsiff during the pendency of the appeal. On 5-8-1972 the learned District Judge took up for consideration the interlocutory applications.

(2.) On that day both the parties were represented by their Counsel before the learned District Judge. The relevant part of the order sheet in the appeal dt.5-8-1972 reads as follows:

(3.) In the circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the Court to pass a decree for recovery of possession of any premises to which the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act was applicable depended upon its satisfaction that one or more of the . grounds mentioned in S.13(1) had been proved. The Supreme Court was further of the opinion that where the Court had proceeded solely on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the Court was not competent to pass the decree. The Supreme Court finally concluded that the decree passed by the Court on the basis of the compromise was a nullity.