Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) The Respondent prays that time for vacating up to 5th June 1969 might please be given and the Petitioner agrees to the same.

.lm15 (3) The Respondent agrees to vacate the petition premises and hand over possession of the entire petition premises to the petitioner on or before the said date viz. 5th June 1969 without fail under any circumstances and undertakes not to apply for extension of time.

(4) It is agreed by both the parties that this Memo of Compromise is executable as a Decree of Court. Dated at Madras, this the 31st day of March, 1969". The compromise petition was signed by both the appellant and ,the respondent as well as the advocate appearing for them. The court, after referring to the petition of the landlord- being under section 10(3) (a) (i) of the Act on the ground of his own occupation, passed the following order :-

cation was that the decree sought to be executed was one based on compromise or consent without the Rent Control Court having satisfied itself by an independent consideration regarding the bona fide requirement of the property by the landlord for his own occupation; and as such the decree contravened section 10 of the Act. This application was opposed by the appellant in a lengthy counter-affidavit. In this counter-affidavit, the landlord, after referring to the various items of evidence adduced before the court, which have been referred to earlier, has stated that it was when the respondent found that the pleas raised by him could not be sustained and that the landlord's case was true that he unconditionally withdrew his defence and submitted to a decree. 'He has further pleaded that the decree sought to be executed does not suffer any infirmity. The learned City Civil Judge by his order dated March 18, 1970, over-ruled the objections raised to the respondent and dismissed E. A. No. 1314 of 1969 and gave time to the respondent till April 20, 1970, to vacate and deliver the possession of the property. The respondent carried the matter to the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 797 of 1970. The High Court by its judgment and order dated September 15, 1970, has reversed the order of the City Civil Court and accepted the contentions, of the respondent. The learned Judge has held that the decree for eviction dated March 31, 1969, is solely passed on the basis of the compromise and the Rent Controller has not applied his mind to satisfy himself whether the bona fide requirement of the landlord hag been established. It is the further' view of the High Court that even if there was enough material before the Rent Control Court, when it passed the order of eviction by consent, the decree will, nevertheless, be void so long as the Rent Controller has not given his decision regarding the requirement of the landlord being bona fide. On this line of reasoning, the learned Judge held that 'the eviction order is a nullity and is not executable.