Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Ferozi Lal Jain vs Man Mal And Anr. on 11 March, 1970
(10) The respondent's counsel has contended that the statement of the parties mentioned above contained an admission about the existence of the arrears of rent and on this basis, the Court had jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act and, therefore, according to the counsel, in terms of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Ferozi Lal's case the decree is not without jurisdiction.
Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
(12) In Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Pawan, , the Court observed that it was a fundamental principle that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction was a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it was sought to be enforced or relied upon even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceeding. The counsel for the appellant relies upon this authority in answer to the objection of the respondent that the appellant ought to have filed an appeal or revision against the impugned previous decree or at all events ought to have initiated separate proceedings to have it declared void. In my opinautnorites of - the Supreme above take the matter out- further controversy and if decree can be accepted in execution proceedings (where the execution Court is normally bound by the decree) there is greater reason to. hold that the same could be declared in other proceedings between the same parties. The finding of the Court below with regard to the nullity of the decree will, therefore, have to be reversed.
Bahadur Singh & Anr vs Muni Subrat Dass & Anr on 16 October, 1968
Bahadur Singh's case was the earliest to be decided. Bachawat, J. speaking for the Court, after examining the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act 38 of 1952 observed that a decree passed by a Court, without satisfying itself about the existence of the ground of eviction specified by the statute, merely on the basis of the award of the Arbitrator, was a nullity and could not be enforced in execution. His Lordship further observed that such a decree being a nullity could not be enforced or executed either by the landlord or by the landlord's son, but that the decree, so far it directed removal of the machinery from the premises, was clearly valid and separable from the rest and could be executed. This decision was followed in Kaushalya Devi's-case. In that case after the filing of the written statement, denying the allegations and the framing of the appropriate issues, an application was filed by the plaintiff and the defendant that a compromise had been effected on the terms mentioned in the petition. These terms included a decree for ejectment not executable until a specified time and that standard rent be fixed at a lower figure than the contract rent with effect from the date mentioned the rein in the compromise . The tenant did not vacate and execution of the decree was taken out which was resisted in execution proceedings. An objection was raised that the decree contravened the provisions of section 13 of the Rent Act and was a nullity. This objection failed before the Court of first instance as well as the lower appellate Court, but prevailed with the High Court and appeal against the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court which affirmed the finding of the High Court that the decree was a nullity and could not be enforced in execution. The facts of this case are very much similar to the facts of the instant case.
Section 2 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Slum Areas (Improvement And Clearance) Act, 1956
Kaushalya Devi & Ors vs Shri K.L. Bansal on 3 December, 1968
(11) I have carefully considerd the submissions. There is no doubt that there was material before the Court in the statement of the parties about the existence of arrears of rent, but this alone would not be sufficient to pass a decree for eviction even on the ground of non-payment of rent as all the conditions mentioned in clause (a) required to be established. For example the service of notice, failure to tender or pay the amount within the prescribed preiod and failure to deposit the amount of rent in Court within the time allowed. With regard to eviction on the ground of personal necessity, there is not even an allegation about the existence of any material on the record. In any view of the matter, I have no doubt that the Court passing the decree had not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and had instead of satisfying itself about the establishment of the statutory grounds of eviction, either on the basis of the evidence on record or admission of the parties, merely recorded acceptance of the compromise. Such a decree is clearly, in terms of. the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Kaushalya Devi's case (Supra) a nullity and without jurisdiction and such a decree cannot be enforced in execution, nor confer or alter legal rights or status.
1