RAJ KUMAR Vs. GIRJA SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON an application made by the tenant under Section 19 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to file a criminal complaint against the landlord because he was realising rent at the rate of Rs. 22 which was in excess of the fair rent fixed of the premises at Rs. 16, the Rent Controller came to the following findings:

(2.) THE only point urged is that no fair rent of the premises in dispute had been fixed. The position is like this. Another tenant, who was occupying these premises earlier, had filed an application under Section 4 of the Act against his landlords, who were the predecessors -in -interest of the present landlord (Petitioner before me). The Rent Controller did not fix the fair rent after determining it in a judicial manner, but he fixed Rs. 16 as the fair rent on the basis of the statements of the tenant and the landlord, both agreeing that the fair rent be fixed at Rs. 16 per mensem. These facts are not challenged.

(3.) ONE thing is now well settled. If an application is filed by a landlord for the ejectment of a tenant under Section 13 of the Act and an order of ejectment is passed, not after the Court has given a finding that one or more of the conditions precedent for directing an order of ejectment under Section 13 of the Act do exist but merely on the statement of the tenant that a decree for ejectment may be passed and that he will put the landlord in possession of the premises after certain period, then such a decree would be a nullity and unenforceable. See in this respect Smt. Kanshalya Devi and Ors. v. K.L. Bansal : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 838. There a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the following terms: