KOTHARI INTERGROUP LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. D BALDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 17-7-1993 passed in HRC 1338 of 1991 by the court of the Additional Small Causes, Bangalore on interlocutory applications numbered as IA No. II and III filed by the tenant under Order 23, Rules 3-A, 1 and 2 read with Section 96(B) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Before dealing with the contentions advanced by the counsel on record, it would be proper to understand the scope of Order 23, Rule 3 under rent legislation in force. It is well-settled that where Rent Control and Restriction Acts are in operation, a landlord cannot obtain eviction of the tenant unless he can satisfy the requirements of the provisions in those Acts. The general law of landlord and tenant to that extent will give way to the special Act in that behalf. It is also settled that if the court does not find the permissible grounds for eviction disclosed in the pleadings and other materials, on the record no consent or compromise will give jurisdiction to the court to pass a valid decree of eviction. As such one has to look into the decree for eviction that has been passed. If the court has not applied its mind for the purposes of being satisfied either on the face of the decree or on materials on record to pass a decree on any of admissible grounds then it is open for the aggrieved party to challenge the same as being invalid. On the other hand if the court has examined the pleadings, the terms of the compromise as well as evidence on record and resultant order of eviction has been passed then it would not be possible to accede to the submission that court did not apply its mind to the relevant question that was necessary to be considered at that stage while passing the decree or order thereof.

(3.) It is well-established that if on pleadings and other materials on record make out a prima facie case about the existence of statutory ground for eviction, a compromise decree cannot be held to be invalid.