MOHAMMAD ISRHAQ Vs. JANNAT BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by by the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing his appeal, which he had preferred against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby he has refused to stay the proceedings in execution pending decision of the objections, against him in the following circumstances:- The landlord had applied for evicting the tenant from the premiess in question on the ground that she required the premises for re-roofing the same i. e. for effecting the "reparis" under Section 14 (f) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. There was a compromise between the landlord and the tenant on 28th April, 1961 or. the basis of which a decree for eviction was passed in terms of the compromise. By the said compromise the tenant admitted that the landlord had to get the roof-re-re-laid. He, therefor, agreed that an order for eviction be passed against him and in favour of the landlord and that he would vacate the premises on or before 15th August, 1961 and hand over possession to the landord, in which event the landord was to return possession of the premises the tenant after repairs by 15th September, 1961. The compromise further provided that in case the tenant did not surrender possession as agreed he would be liable to eviction at once and would not be entitled to restoration of possession after effecting of repairs. It was also stipulated that Rs.2uCOwere to be paid as damages to the tenant if the landlord did not put him back in possession of the propertey after effecting the repairs.

(2.) An application for review of the above order was made on 26th August, i961, by the tenant, in which it was a stated that a representation had been made by the landlored that the necessary plans for carrying out reparis had been sanctioned while it was seen that the landlord had not made any such application for carrying out the repairs. It was further stated that it was a duty, under the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958, cast on the part of the Pent Controller to satisfy himself that the conditions as laid down in 14 (f) of the Act were fulfilled and the Rent Controller not having expressed such satisfaction the decree was a nullity. This application for the review was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 23rd September, 1961.

(3.) The landlord later applied for evicting the tenant after getting the permission of the Competent Authority under the Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, the premises in question being situate in the slum area. The tenant also applied, on 2nd June, 1966 to the Rent Controller under Section 14 (8) and 20 of the Delhi Rent Control Act read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that the decree itself was unexecutable and to set aside the decree in the event of landlord not being able to take possession of the premises for re-roofing the house and handing it back to the tenant. Pending determination of this application he had also applied or stay which was refused by the Rent Controller. Against this order he appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal. This second appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dismissing is appeal.