DAMODAR PATNAIK Vs. JURIA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was the tenant -opposite party and the opposite party was the landlord -Petitioner in House Rent Control Case No. 26 of 1977 in the Court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate -cum -House Rent Controller, Berhampur (for short, the 'Controller'). The opposite party had sought eviction of the Petitioner in respect of the tenanted house under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (for short, the 'Act') on the grounds that the Petitioner was a wilful defaulter and that die house was required by the opposite party for his bona fide use and occupation. These were legal and valid grounds for eviction as provided in Section 7 of the Act. The Petitioner had objected to the eviction sought by the opposite party, had denied the allegation that he was a wilful defaulter and had refuted the assertion made by the opposite party that the house was required for his bona fide use and occupation. On February 15, 1978, both the parties effected a compromise and filed a petition of compromise signed by both of them and their Advocates stating:

(2.) THAT the Respondent has to vacate the house before 28 -2 -1978 positively and have to deliver the possession of the house to the Petitioner.

(3.) IT has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. Muni Subrat Das and Anr., (1969) 2 S.C. 432, that a decree for eviction passed in contravention of the Rent Control Act would be null and void and cannot be executed. In Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Ors. v. K.L. Bansal : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 838, a decree for ejectment had been passed on the basis of a compromise effected by the parties and the following order had been passed: