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 vs Munl Subrat Dass1
1 1969 2 SCR 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 KL 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 then
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 following order 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 section 47 CPC challenging the validity of the decree alleging that the same had been passed in contravention of the provisions of section 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 Sub Judge Delhi
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 section 13 of the Act existed
In Bahadur Singh s case1 this Court held that the decree passed on the basis of an award was in contravention of section 131 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 section 131 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 section 131 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 casex
In the result the appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs
RKPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
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 section 47 CPC 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 his favour
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 section 13 of the Act existed
1050 B Bahadur Singh vs Muni Subrat Dass  followed