AMAR NATH Vs. SHRI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN an appeal by the landlord in this Court the parties entered into a settlement. In the application for recording the settlement the tenant admitted the bonafide requirement of the landlord. The learned Judge here in the revision petition recorded the order that he was satisfied that the compromise was genuine and consequently, on the basis of that compromise he passed a decree for eviction. The tenant gave an undertaking to the Court that he will hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute after six months of the decree.

(2.) AT the time of execution of the decree the tenant instead of complying with the undertaking raised an objection that the order of eviction was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Courts below had recorded the finding that the premises were let for residential-cum-commercial purposes and as such Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was not attracted. This plea of the tenant was negatived by the Additional Rent Controller as also by the Rent Control Tribunal.

(3.) I have looked into both these decisions and in my opinion the decisions are against the appellant inasmuch as it has specifically been observed by their Lordships that the tenant while entering into settlement in this Court can expressly or impliedly waived his rights regarding a particular ground or all the grounds. In the present case while admitting that the premises were bonafide required by the landlord, he has obviously waived his other pleas. It is not a simple compromise because a regular application was filed under Order 21II of the Code of Civil Procedure and the matter was argued before the learned Judge who recorded the filing that the compromise was genuine which obviously means that all the pleas and contentions of the parties were considered by the learned Judge.