JURIA SAHU Vs. DAMODAR PATNAIK

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 tie petitioner was a wilful defaulter and that the house was required by the opposite party for his bonafide use and occupation. These were legal and valid grounds for eviction as provided in Sec. 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 bonafide use and occupation. On Feb. 15, 1978, both the parties effected a compromise and filed a petition of compromise signed by both of them and their Advocates stating :

(2.) The opposite party sought the eviction of the petitioner in Execution Proceeding No. 51 of 1980 in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur, as the petitioner did not vacate possession of the house as agreed upon. Objection was raised by the petitioner under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the executability of the decree on the ground of misdescription of property. The learned Munsif rejected this contention by his order dated June 30, 1981. This order has been assailed in this revision.

(3.) The same ground taken before the learned Munsif as to the misdescription of property, which, as observed by the learned Munsif, had no substance, had been taken. Later, however, an additional ground had been taken in this revision. Mr. S.S. Rao appearing for the petitioner has raised only one contention, viz., that the decree is illegal and cannot be executed in the absence of any order of the Controller at the time of disposal of the case under the Act that he was satisfied that a ground for eviction did exist. Mr. B.B. Ratho, the learned counsel for the opposite party, has contended that there were valid grounds for the eviction of the petitioner which had been pleaded by the opposite party in his application under the Act and by effecting the compromise, the petitioner had submitted to the grounds raised by the opposite party for eviction and the Controller, after proper application of his mind, had passed the order of eviction. Reference has been made at the Bar to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court and the Calcutta High Court in some reported cases.