JAGDISH CHANDER BHATIA Vs. LAKSHMAN SWARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two important but independent questions arise in this appeal, one being of substance and the other of procedure.

(2.) The landlords who consist of respondents and one Ram Swarup deceased had filed a suit for eviction against the tenants who consist of the appellants under section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) on three grounds, namely :

(3.) The Court could order the eviction of the tenants only if it was satisfied that the requirements of proviso (e) were fulfilled by the landlords. The decree for eviction against the tenants was binding on them unless and until the tenants got it set aside by the collateral procecding of the suit filed by them. The burden of proof was. therefore, on the tenants to show that the decree for eviction was void. The various grounds specified in the provisos to section 13(1) enable the Court to evict the tenants only if the Court was satisfied about the existence of any of them. The satisfaction of the Court as to the existence of a ground for eviction was a matter of public policy and. therefore, it was not open to the Court to pass a decree for eviction without being so satisfied merely because the parties agreed that such a decree should be passed. For, the tenants for whose protection the Act was passed could not just enter into some compromise with the landlords contrary to these statutory provisions and the landlords could not rest the validity of the decree for eviction on any implied waiver of the protection of the statute by the tenants. Even the validity of an express waiver of such protection has to be considered in each case on its own -merits. But it was necessary for the tenants to allege and prove that the Court was not satisfied about the existence of the bona fide personal requirement of the landlords for the occupation of the premises within the meaning of proviso (e) to section 13(1).