SARDAR IQBAL SINGH Vs. RAM NATH CHAWDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision, petition by a tenant. The proceedings are pending in execution of a decree for eviction passed in favour of the landlord. The decree for eviction was passed on the basis of a compromise. The plaintiff - landlord filed suit for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity as contemplated by Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called as the Act of 1950 ). THIS decree, was passed in the year 1974. In terms of decree, 7 years time was granted to the tenant to vacate the premises.

(2.) THE plaintiff alleged bona fide and personal necessity and though initially the suit was contested on this ground, but before any evidence could be recorded, the defendant agreed and filed a compromise in which he admitted the personal necessity of the landlord. Certain other terms were incorporated regarding the compensation of use of land in a phased manner and the right to execute the decree before 7 years in case of default in payment of rent. However, the crux of the compromise was that the benefit of 7 years was allowed to the tenant on the basis of payment of increased rent in phased programme THEre was a clear averment that the decree can be executed earlier in case of default in payment of rent and the maximum period permissible was 7 years.

(3.) I have carefully considered the above submissions of learned counsel and have also gone through the various decisions referred to above. Both in Bahadur Singh's case and Kaushalya Devi's case, it was not in dispute that the decree which was passed was not on any of the grounds mentioned in section 13 of the Act. In Bahadur Singh's case the decree was passed on the basis of an award under Section 17 off the Arbitration Act, in a proceeding to which the landlord was not a party without satisfying itself that a ground of eviction existed and therefore, it was held to be nullity. Similarly in Kaushalya Devi's case (supra) a decree was passed on the basis of the compromise but there was nothing to show in that compromise that any of the conditions of Section 13 of the Rent Control Act is fulfilled.