(1.) A suit for eviction of Har Charan Singh respondent, herein, from a house situated in Mohalla Alaf Shah, Partap Garh Jammu, instituted by the appellants on October 10, 1962, on the statutory ground of the premises being reasonably required by them for their own occupation, was dismissed by the Sub Judge, Jammu, by his judgment and decree dated August 14, 1964. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated March 25, 1968 affirmed the said judgment and decree. The second appeal preferred by the appellants was allowed by me vide my judgment dated January 3, 1969, and the case remanded to the District Judge, Jammu, with the direction that he should allow an opportunity to the appellants to prove the altered circumstances alleged by them to have supervened since the institution of the suit namely the factum of marriages of Jagdish Chander and Krishan Lal, appellants, which were stated to have taken place on May 14, 1964, and February 14, 1966, respectively and the manner in which they had affected the reasonableness of the appellantâ„¢s requirement of the suit house and to decide the case afresh in accordance with law after allowing the contesting respondent an opportunity of adducing evidence in rebuttal.
(2.) AFTER remand the appellants examined Prabh Dayal, Jagdish Chander, Thakur Dass and Des Raj. Jagdish Chander and Krishan Lal appellants also went into the witness box in support of their assertions. In rebuttal the contesting respondent examined Satish Chander and Garib Dass and closed his evidence on February 24, 1969.
(3.) ON May 7, 1969, the parties entered into a compromise by making statements on solemn affirmation before Shri Harbans Lal, the then District Judge, Jammu. The statement of the contesting respondent was to the effect that "he is convinced that the plaintiffs require the suit house for the personal occupation and the suit merits being decreed but he also requires time for searching another house, that he has agreed with the plaintiffs that they may have a decree for his eviction but they would not dispossess him till the end of December, 1972, that in case of his default to surrender possession of the premises to the plaintiffs during the aforesaid period he would be liable to pay Rs.10/ - per diem as compensation to them for the period they fail to get possession, that this condition has been agreed upon to impel him to hand -over possession of the house in question to the plaintiffs by the end of December, 1972, and not with a view to prevent the decree being put into execution after the end of December, 1972." The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also made a statement requesting the court to pass a decree in terms of the statement of the contesting defendant. Thereupon the learned District Judge, passed the following order: - "Counsel for the parties, Krishan Kumar plaintiff and S. Harcharan Singh defendant present. The parties have compromised. Their statements have been recorded. The suit is decreed in the following terms on the basis of the compromise arrived at. A decree for ejectment with regard to the suit house is passed in favour of the plaintiffs against Harcharan Singh defendant. The plaintiff will execute the decree only if the possession of the suit property is not delivered to them by the end of December, 1972. If the possession is not delivered by this time, the defendant can be thrown out in execution of the decree and for the time spent in satisfaction of the decree, the plaintiffs will be entitled to Rs.10/ - daily as compensation for use and occupation of the suit property. The incorporation of this condition shall not debar the plaintiffs from executing the decree after December 1972. The parties to bear their own costs." After the expiry of the period specified in the statement of the contesting respondent, the appellants took out execution of the decree on January 2, 1973, in the court of the Sub Judge, Jammu, which was resisted by the contesting respondent inter -alia on the ground that the aforesaid decree having been passed by the District Judge without "satisfaction that the requirements under the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, were established" it was a nullity in the eye of law and was inexecutable. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the executing court acceded to the contention raised on behalf of the contesting respondent and dismissed the execution application holding that the same was not maintainable. Aggrieved by this order the appallant took the matter in appeal to the District Judge, Jammu. Concurring with the executing court Mirza Saif -ud -Ahmad, District Judge, dismissed the appeal by his order dated March 13, 1973, holding that the phraseology of Section 11(i)(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966, made it incumbent on the court to judicially determine the reasonableness of landlordâ„¢s requirement, and that the decree for ejectment passed by his predecessor on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties without applying his own mind and coming to the conclusion or recording a finding to the effect that the appellants reasonably required the house for their personal occupation was a nullity. In coming to this conclusion, the learned District Judge, relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kaushalaya Devi and ors. versus. K. L. Bansal, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 838 and Ferozi Lal Jain Man Mal and ors. A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 794.