INDERJIT SINGH Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by the landlord (decree-holder) is as to whether the decree directing eviction of the tenant (respondent) is a nullity and as such not execute.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeal are not in dispute and may be briefly stated in so far as they are relevant.

(3.) THE question before us is whether the order of the Rent Controller can be described as an order under Section 13 of the Act. It is not disputed that the landlord had not pleaded in the eviction application the three grounds envisaged by Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act, as to was essential to be pleaded by the ruling of our own High Court in Rajinder Singh Nanda v. Kewal Krishan, reported in 1975 Ren CR 325 : (AIR 1976 Punj and Har 21 ). Shri Puran Chand, Advocate, appearing for the landlord, has urged that in this case, the order of eviction was passed on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties and the Court was, in fact, satisfied that the grounds mentioned in Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act were established in this case. The contention of the tenant is that the compromise between the parties was not based on any of the grounds on which the eviction was sought, and, therefore, the order of the Rent Controller is not sustainable. In my opinion the tenant is right. Section 13 of the Act directs that no tenant shall be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of that section. To evict the tenant the landlord must apply to the Controller for an order in that behalf, and the Controller can make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession only if he is satisfied that one or more of the grounds set out in Section 13 of the Act exist. The Controller can make the order only with reference to those grounds. He has, otherwise, no power to make such an order. The jurisdiction of the Controller is defined by those grounds. It is a limited jurisdiction and if he passes beyond those limits, the order made will be a nullity. If the order of the Controller is a nullity, there is no order in contemplation of the law and, therefore, the tenant cannot be evicted.