Kaushalya Devi & Ors Vs. Shri K.L.
Bansal  INSC 307 (3 December 1968)
03/12/1968 SIKRI, S.M.
CITATION: 1970 AIR 838 1969 SCR (2)1048 1969
SCC (1) 59
E 1973 SC1311 (20,33,34) D 1974 SC 471 (7,22,25)
R 1974 SC 994 (34,35) RF 1975 SC2130 (2) RF 1981 SC1401 (3) F 1982 SC1518 (9)
RF 1987 SC1823 (8) RF 1987 SC1986 (32)
Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 2952, s.
13-Compromise decree passed without regard to provisions of s. 13-If valid.
The appellant-plaintiffs filed a suit in
February 1956, for the eviction the respondent on the ground that the premises
were required for their own use, that the defendant already owned a suitable
house of his own, and that the respondent had defaulted in payment of rent,
after the defendant had flied a written statement and issues had been framed a
joint application was made by them that a compromise had been effected. The
trial court decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour in terms of the compromise
which provided inter alia, for the ejectment of the defendant after 31st
December 1958, and fixed the standard rent as agreed. The defendant, however,
did not vacate the premises in December 1958, and presented an application in
February 1959 under s.
47 C.P.C., challenging the validity of the
decree alleging that it had been passed in contravention of the provision of
Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 and contending that the decree was,
therefore, a nullity. He 'failed before the Sub-Judge and also in appeal before
the Senior Sub-Judge.
However, the High Court in revision held in
appeal to this Court,
HELD: The High Court has rightly held that
the decree was a nullity as the order passed on the basis of the compromise did
not indicate that any of the statutory grounds mentioned in s. 13 of the Act
existed. [1050 B] Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass,  2 S.C.R. 432,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 98 of 1966.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September
7, 1962 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Revision
Application No. 140-D of 1961. ' P. Sinha, G. Bhimsena Rao and M. 1. Khowaja,
for the appellants.
I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the Circuit Bench of the Punjab
High Court at Delhi is governed by the decision of this Court in Bahadur Singh
v. Munl Subrat Dass(1).
(1)  2 S,C.R.
1041 The facts out of which the present
appeal arises are these. One Raghunath Sharma, predecessor-m-interest of the
appellants hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff--instituted on February 7,
1956, suit No. 53 of 1956 in the Court of Subject 1st Class, Delhi, for the
eviction of his tenant, K.L. Bansal, hereinafter referred to as the defendant.
He gave three grounds for ejectment in the plaint: (1 ) that the premises were
required bona fide by the plaintiff for occupation as residence for himself and
other members of the family, and that he had no other, suitable accommodation
to meet his bona fide residential requirements; (2) that the defendant already
owned a house in Delhi which was suitable for him; and (3) that the defendant
had defaulted in payment of rent.
The defendant flied a written statement
denying these allegaltions. Appropriate issues were framed on April 4, 1956. On
June 5, 1956, an application was filed by the plaintiff and the defendant that
a compromise had been effected on the following terms:
"(a) Decree for ejectment be passed in
favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, the decree will be executable
after the 31st December, 1958, if the defendant does not give possession till
(b) The standard rent of the premises be
fixed at Rs. 40/- per mensem, instead of Rs. 50/- paid at present payable from
the 1st July, 1956, till the defendant vacates the premises.
(c) The amount, in deposit with this Court be
paid to the plaintiff which will be adjusted between the On July 6, 1956, the
counsel for the parties and the plaintiff made a statement on solemn
affirmation to the same effect, and on the same day the Court recorded the
"In view of the statement of the
parties' counsel and the written compromise, a decree is passed in favour of
the plaintiff against the defendant." The decree was drawn up accordingly.
The defendant, however, did not vacate the
premises' on December 31, 1958. On the other hand, he presented an application
on February 16, 1959, under s. 47, C.P.C., challenging the validity of the
decree alleging that the same had been passed in contravention of the
provisions of s. 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (XXXVIII of
1952), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and hence the decree was a nullity.
He failed 1050 before the Sub-Judge, 'and also on appeal before the Senior
The High Court, on revision, held that the
decree was a nullity as the order passed on the basis of the compromise did not
indicate that any of the statutory grounds mentioned in s. 13 of the Act existed.
In Bahadur Singh's case(1) this Court held that the decree passed on the basis
of an award was in contravention of s. 13(1) of the Act became the Court had
passed the decree in terms of the award without satisfying itself that the
ground of eviction existed.
Bachawat, J,. speaking for the Court,
observed that "on the plain wording of s. 13(1) the Court was forbidden to
pass the decree. The decree is a nullity and cannot be enforced in
execution." This Court, accordingly, declared inter alia that "the
decree in so far as it directs delivery of possession of the premises to the
landlord is a nullity and cannot be executed." The present case is also
governed by the provisions of s. 13(1) of the Act and, as we have said before,
this appeal must fail, in view of the judgment of this Court in Bahadur Singh's
case(x). In the result the appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to
R.K.P.S. Appeal dismissed.
(1)  2 S.C.R. 432.