HAKIM KABIR AHMED Vs. BHANWARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in-revision filed by Hakim Kabir Ahmed against an order of the Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur, City, dated 31st Jan. , 1978, whereby objections of the petitioner under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code relating to execution of the decree for his eviction from the suit premises were dismissed and the decree was held to be executable.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision-application may be briefly stated as follows:--Mst. Bhanwari Bai instituted a suit for eviction against Hakim Kabir ahmed from her shop in the court of the Munsiff, Jodhpur City, on the ground that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide by her for the use or occupation of herself. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit for eviction against the petitioner. On 1st and 2nd appeals by the petitioner, the judgment, and decree passed by the learned munsiff were upheld and confirmed. The petitioner then preferred an appeal in the Supreme Court of India against the judgment and decree of the High Court. The appeal was admitted for hearing by the supreme Court. Later on, in the course of arguments of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the parties thereto amicably settled their dispute and prayed to the Supreme Court for decision of the appeal in accordance with the terms of the settlement. The Supreme Court was pleased to pass an order on 17th Nov. , 1976, which is set out below in extenso:-

(3.) I have carefully gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Supreme Court had proceeded alone on the basis of the compromise entered into by the parties before it without satisfying itself as to the existence of the ground of eviction mentioned in Clause (h) of. Section 13 (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act as amended by Ordinance of 1975 (now Act No. 14 of 1976) and, therefore, the decree sought to be executed against the petitioner must be declared to be a nullity. In support of his above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on ferozi Lal v. Man Mal. AIR 1970 SC 794; Kaushalya Devi v. K. L. Bonsai, AIR 1970 SC 838; K. K. Chari v. R. M. Sheshadri AIR 1973 SC 1311, Roshan Lal v. Madan Lal, AIR 1975 SC 2130, Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lala Ramnara-yan, AIR 1978 sc 227 and Rahrnan v. Ram Chand, AIR 1978 SC 413. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other hand, urged that the order of the Supreme court based on the compromise of the parties is not void, because before passing an order in terms of the agreement of the parties the Supreme Court satisfied itself about the existence of the ground on which the ground of eviction was based and it acted on the admission of the petitioner and decided the appeal in favour of Bhanwari Bai upholding the decrees for eviction passed by the courts below. In support of his above contention, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner relied upon Nagindasv. Dalpatram, AIR 1974 SC 471; P. Raju v. Bala Krishna, AIR 1978 Mad 62 and Muni Lal v. Prescribed Authority, AIR 1978 SC 29.