DORAISWAMI REDDY Vs. M R GOVINDA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point that arises for determination in the Civil Revision petition is whether the decree passed in pursuant of compromise entered into between the parties in an eviction petition filed by the landlord, the petitioner herein, to evict the tenants, the respondents, under the provisions of section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings, (Lease, Rent and. Eviction) Control Act. 1960 (herein after referred to as" the "Act") is a nullity and therefore not executable. The matter has arisen under the following circumstances : The petitioner filed a petition under section 10 of the Act against the respondents foe eviation of a building on two grounds, viz., (1) he requires the building for starting a business of his own and (2) the respondents committed wilful default to payment of rent. The eviction petition was disposed of by the Rent Controller on a compromise entered into between the parlies. The order passed by the Rent Controller on 17-12-1968 is in the following terms; "Petition is allowed to terms of joint endorsement." Below the order the joint endorsement was extracted which runs thus:

(2.) After the expiry of the two years time on 31-12-1970, when the respodants rafused to vacate the building and put the petitioner in possession the petitioner took execution proceedings in the court of the District Munsif concerned to obtain possession of the building through court in terms of the compromise decree. The 2nd respondent resisted the execution proceedings alleging inter-alia among other things that the order of eviction pasted in pursuance of the compromise on 17-12-1968 by the Rent Controller is invalid, illegal 'and without jurisdiction as that order was passed by the Rent Controller without satisfying himself about the existence of the grounds on which the eviction of the building was sought by the petitioner. The contention was that without such a satisfaction the order of eviction is a nullity and therefore incapable of execution, In support of this contention reliance ins placed by the 2nd respondent before the executing -court on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kaushalya Devi v. K.L. Bansal which has arisoa under the Delhi and Ajmir Rent Control Act, 1952. Following that decision and an unreported decision of the court rendered by Parthasarathi. J. in C.R.P. Nos. 1490 and 1849 of 1968 dated 6-7-1970, the executing court held that the order passed by the Rent Controller is a nullity and therefore net executable. Aggrieved by that view taken by the executing court, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Section 10 (1) of the Act reads that

(3.) It is provided under Section 10 (2) that