MANOHAR LAL CHICHRA Vs. TOPAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which falls for determination in this second appeal from order is whether the ejectment order is a nullity having been passed without jurisdiction and is, therefore, not executable In order to appreciate the position it is necessary to state the facts so far as they are relevant for the present purpose.

(2.) AN ejectment order was passed on 24 -9 -1960 in favour of Topan Ram against his tenant Manohar Lal when the tenant was allowed time up to 24 -9 -62 for vacating the premises. Since the tenant did not vacate the premises in accordance with the order, the decree -holder landlord applied for execution of the order dated 24 -9 -1960. The tenant resisted the execution on the ground that the order of ejectment had been passed on the basis of a compromise and was, therefore, unenforceable in execution proceedings, being an order passed by the Rent Controller without jurisdiction.

(3.) ON the matter having been taken on appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal the same arguments were repeated on behalf of the tenant but without success. According to the Appellate Tribunal, the counsel for the tenant had stated on 24 -9 -60 that it was admitted that the landlord required the premises for his residence and that an order of ejectment on this ground may be passed giving the tenant two years period for vacating the premises. This statement was admitted to be correct by the counsel for the landlord. It thus appeared clear to the Appellate Tribunal that the tenant had admitted the correctness of the grounds of ejectment and it was on this basis that the order for eviction was passed, the Controller having been fully satisfied on the admission of the tenant regarding the existence of the grounds of ejectment. On this premise, the impugned order of eviction was held to be valid.