RAM SINGH CHADHA Vs. MOTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appellant-tenant's appeal against the order of the Controller refusing to stay the appellant's eviction in execution of an order to that efct.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed an eviction application against the appellant on the ground of his personal bona fide requirements for the premises. In the writen statement, the appellant admitted that the respondent was a landlord and that the premises in question were purely residential and had been let out to him for residential purposes. He, however, contested his eviction on the pleas that the respondent did not require the premises bona fide for himself or for his family members dependent on him and that he had another suitable accommodation at 7/23 Daryaganj.

(3.) On September 12, 1967 the parties arrived at a compromise and made a statement on oath saying that an order for eviction in favour of the respondent against the appellant be passed in view of the respondent's ownership of the premises and his bona fied requirements for the same. It was also agreed that the appellant be grantcd time (two years and eight months) to vacate the premises up to May 31, 1970' and that respondent would not execute the eviction order before June 1, 1970. On that very date, an order was passed by the Controller saying that in accordance with the statements of the parties, an order for eviction in favour of the respondent and against the appellant be passed. Time, however, was granted for vacating the premises till May 31, 1970. On May 19, 1970 the appellant filed an application under section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pleading that the eviction order passed on the basis of a compromise was outside the competence of the Controller. It was further pleaded that on April II, 1970 the respondent had entered into a fresh compromise, according to which he had accepted the appellant as a regular tenant on the same terms and conditions, and accepted rent for the period from February 10, 1970 to March 9, 1970 and also undertook to get the satisfaction of the eviction order recorded before the Controller, but that the respondent afterwards changed his mind. Prayer was made that the eviction order be declared a nullity and and non executable; and the decree-holder be restrained from executing the same. A separate stay application was filed praying for the stay of execution proceeding till the disposal of the objection petition. The learned Controller came to the conclusion that the appellant had no prima fade case. The application for stay of execution proceeding was, therefore, dismissed. The learned Rent Control Tribunal concurring with the views of the Controller refused to interfere with the said order. The tenant has under these circumstances come up to this Court in second appeal.