VAS DEV SHARMA Vs. MILKHI RAM BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C. R. No. 437-D of 1958 and C. R. No. 5490-D of 1959 as identical points are involved in both the petitions. The facts, however, in Vas Dev Sharma's case alone need be stated, at first.

(2.) THE tenancy of the suit premises commenced in the year 1943. In December,, 1951, a suit for ejectment was filed against the tenant but it failed in the first Court and the appellant Court. In june, 1954, a suit for ejectment was filed against the tenant on three ground viz. , perversion of user, non-payment of rent and requirement for personal occupation. There was a compromise on 9th November, 1955. A decree for ejectment was passed in terms of the compromise according to which the tenant was to vacate the premises by 30th April, 1957. The rent was to be paid month by month on or before the 16th of every month. The tenant was not to sublet any portion of the premises. After 30th April, 1957, the landlord took out execution of the decree but the tenant raised an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure that as the ejectment decree was passed on the basis of a compromise it was invalid and could not be executed. Another plea taken was that a fresh contractual relationship had been created between the parties by virtue of the compromise. The executing Court as well as the first Court of appeal held that the decree was executable and that the objections raised by the tenant was unsustainable. The tenant has come up to this Court in revision.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the tenant who is the petitioner that according to the proviso to section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, it is only if the Court is satisfied that the various grounds that have been set out therein exist that any decree or order for the recovery of possession can be made. It is submitted that when the parties compromised in the present case and the spirit passed a decree on the basis of that compromise it could not be said that the Court was so satisfied on the evidence adduced before it that the various grounds justifying an order of eviction existed. Now, a similar point came for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in Babu Ram Sharma v. Bal Singh, (1959) 61 Pun LR 33, in which the landlord had applied to the Rent Controller for an order for ejectment of the tenant under Section 13 of the east Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenant appeared before the Rent Controller and denied the allegation made by the landlord in his application. Later on the parties entered into a compromise whereby the tenant undertook to pay Rs. 800/- as arrears of rent by instalments, the instalments being specified. In default of payment of any one of the installments the tenant was liable to be ejected. The tenant did not pay any installment with the result that the landlord sued out execution for ejectment. The judgment-debtor subsequently took up the position that the Court had no jurisdiction to execute the order passed on the compromise because such an order did not in terms fail within the ambit of section 7 of the Punjab Act. The Bench held that the ground on which the landlord had originally sought eviction was non-payment of rent, which was within the express language of section 13. It was, therefore, open to the Rent Controller to determine whether or not the allegation of the landlord that the tenant had not paid the rent was correct. It appeared that the tenant admitted that he had not paid the rent as alleged by the landlord. In this view of the matter it was considered unnecessary that the Controller should have held any further enquiry. Dua, J. made the following observations at page 38:--"after fully considering the matter I am definitely of the opinion that if the compromise decree is based on the grounds on which the landlord could claim a decree for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, then it is within the jurisdiction and competence of the Rent Controller to pass such a decree with a default clause; it is similarly competent for the civil Court to execute such a decree when default has occurred. " here also, the suit which had been filed for ejectment was founded on three grounds which are valid grounds under the proviso to Section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. According to the ratio of the decision of the Bench, if a compromise decree is passed on any one of those grounds, then it would be within the jurisdiction and competence of the Court to pass a decree for ejectment.