AMAR NATH Vs. BAGGA MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BAGGA Mal, respondent, filed a suit against Amar Nath, petitioner, for his ejectment under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, on the grounds of non -payment of rent, subletting etc.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the petitioner and, as a result, issues were framed on 21st January 1958 and the case was fixed for 11th April, 1958 for evidence. It appears that the same could not be taken up on that day and the case was adjourned to 28th April, 1958, on which date also it could not be heard and it was then fixed for 29th July, 1958. On this date, a compromise was effected between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the suit for ejectment be decreed in favour of the respondent, but the petitioner would vacate the premises within three years. In the event of this being done, the parties would be deemed to have been left to bear their own costs, otherwise the petitioner would pay costs to the respondent. In view of the statement of the counsel for the parties, the Court passed a decree for ejectment. The petitioner, however, did not vacate the premises within three years, but filed objections under sections 47 and 151, Civil Procedure Code and section 13 of the Rent Act on 29th July, 1961 on the ground that the decree passed against him on the basis of the compromise was illegal and a nullity, because, according to section 13 of the Rent Act, it was a condition precedent to the passing of a decree that the Court should be satisfied that the grounds for ejectment as mentioned in that section actually existed. There was on the record no material that the court was so satisfied.

(3.) WHETHER the executing Court cannot go behind the decree.