Appeals Nos
2464 and 2465 of 1966
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 8 1964 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No 75 D of 1962
MC Chagla and Lily Thomas for the appellants in CA No 2464 of 1966 and the respondents in CA Nos 2465 of 1966
AK Sen and 1
N Shroff for the respondents in CA E No 2464 of 1966 and the appellants in CA No 2465 of 1966
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
One Mehtab Singh the landlord is the owner of the premises No 279 situate in Dariba Kalan Delhi
His son Muni Subrat Dass resides on the first floor while the ground F floor is in the occupation of the tenants Bahadur Singh and Daryao Singh where they set up a workshop and installed machinery for manufacturing purposes
According to Muni Subrat the workshop was a nuisance and caused him great annoyance
He made a number of complaints to the Municipal Committee for stoppage of the nuisance
On June 10 1954 Muni Subrat G and the tenants agreed in writing to refer the disputes between them to the arbitration of two named arbitrators
The landlord was not a party to the agreement
The arbitrators made their award on July 14 1954
The award directed that i Muni Subrat would withdraw the applications pending before
The Municipal Committee ii the tenants would be at liberty to run the workshop during the day time upto December 31 1957 iii on January 1 1958 the tenants would remove the machinery iv on the same date they would give vacant possession of the ground floor to the landlord and v the tenants would pay rent 434 to landlord for the period of their occupation
The award was signed by the arbitrators and the parties to the reference and was attested by the landlord
It was filed in COurt under section 14 of the 
On August 26 1954 the tenants and Muni Subrat stated in Court that they had no objections against the award
On the same date the Court pronounced judgment according to the award and a decree followed accordingly
On August 23 1958 Muni Subrat and the landlord jointly applied for execution of the decree for delivery of possession of the premises
In anticipation of the application for execution of the decree on January 9 1958 the tenants filed an application under sec
47 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising the following objections to the execution of the decree as to the delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord i the award was beyond the scope of the reference and was invalid and the decree based on the invalid award was void ii the decree was passed in contravention of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 Act No 38 of 1952 and was void and iii the landlord could not execute the decree
The Subordinate Judge First Class Delhi dismissed the objection
He held that i that the objection that the award was without jurisdiction could not be raised under sec
47 ii the decree was not in contravention of the Rent Act and iii the landlord was entitled to execute the decree
On appealthe Additional Senior Sub Judge Delhi held that i the question as to the validity of the award could not be agitated in the execution proceedings ii the decree for eviction was passed in contravention of the Rent Act and was void iii the appeal against the order allowing the landlord to execute the decree was incompetent and iv Muni Subrat was entitled to execute the decree for removal of the machinery but he could not execute the decree for eviction
In the result he dismissed the appeal in part so far as it was directed against the landlord allowed the appeal in part against Muni Subrat and declared that he could get the machinery removed but he could not claim eviction
The tenants and the decree holders filed two separate appeals in the Punjab High Court at Delhi
Gurdev Singh 1
held that i the first appeal filed against the order in favour of the landlord was competent ii the decree for eviction did not contravene the provisions of the Rent Act and iii the landlord was entitled
to execute the decree for eviction
In the result he accepted the decree holder s appeal and dismissed the tenant s appeal
The tenants filed an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent
A Divisional Bench of the High Court held that 1 the objection to the validity of the award could not be entertained in the execution proceedings 2 the decree directing delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord was passed in contravention of the Rent Act 3neither the landlord nor Muni Subrat could 435 enforce that part of the decree 4 the decree directing removal of the machinery was separable and was void and Muni Subrat was entitled to execute it
In the result the DiviSional Bench allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Additional Senior Sub Judge Delhi
In passing this order the Bench overlooked that the Senior Sub Judge had dismissed the appeal against the landlord as incompetent
Having regard to the fact that the appeal against the landlord was competent the Bench should have also set aside the order favouring the landlord
The present appeals have been filed by the tenants as also by the landlord and Muni Subrat after obtaining certificates from the High Court
The following points arise for determination in these appeals 1 Can the objection as to the  validity of the award be raised after a decree is passed  on the award and can the decree be pronounced to be a nullity on the ground that it was based on an invalid award 2 Is the decree directing the tenants to deliver possession of the premises to the landlord a nullity on the ground that it was passed in contravention of the Rent Act 3 Is this portion of the decree enforceable either by the landlord or by Muni Subrat and 4 Is the decree so far as it directs removal of the machinery valid and enforceable by Muni Subrat
The award was filed in Court under section 14 of the and on notice to the tenants and in their presence a decree was passed according to the award under section 17
It is not Open to the tenants now to take the objection that the award was in excess of the authority of the arbitrators or was otherwise invalid
Having regard to the scheme of sections 14 to 17 and 31 to 33 all  questions regarding the validity of the award had to be determined by the Court in which the award was filed and by no other Court
An award which is invalid on any ground can be set aside under section 30
After a decree is passed on the award it is not  open to the parties to the reference to raise any  objection as to  the validity  of the award
As between them the decree conclusively determines that the award is valid
Nor can the decree be pronounced to be a nullity on the ground that  the award was invalid
A decree passed on an invalid award in arbitrations in suits under the second schedule to the Code of Civil  Procedure 1908 stood on the same footing see Rabindra Deb Manna vs Jogendra Deb Manna1 where Rankin 1 observed An award made out of time Or otherwise invalid is no longer a nullity it is liable to be set aside by the Court but if not set aside a decree made for its enforcement is not without jurisdiction Shib Kristo Daw vs Satish Chandra Dutt The next question is whether the decree directing the tenant to deriver possession of the premises to the landlord was
passed AIR 1923 Cal
410 413
436 in contravention of section 13 1 of the Delhi and Ajme Rent Control Act 1952
That sub section provided that Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any contract no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court in favour of the landlord against any tenant including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated Provided that nothing in this sub section shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if the Court is satisfied  Then followed a catalogue of grounds on which the decree for recovery of possession could be passed
The other sub sections to section 13 showed that a decree or order could be passed on one of those grounds in a suit or proceeding instituted by a landlord against a tenant
Section 13 1 prohibited the Court from passing a decree or order for recovery of possession of any premises in favour of a landlord against a tenant except in such a suit or proceeding and unless the Court was satisfied that a ground of eviction existed
Now the decree in the present case is on the face of it one for recovery of possession of the premises in favour of a landlord against a tenant
The Court passed the decree according to an award under section 17 of the in a proceeding to which the landlord was not a party without satisfying itself that a ground of eviction existed
On the plain wording of section 13 1  the Court was forbidden to pass the decree
The decree is a nullity and cannot be enforced in execution
The contusion that a decree passed in contravention of section 13 1 is a nullity is supported by the decision in Peachey Property Corpn
vs Robinson1
In that case the landlords issued a writ to recover possession of a flat let to tenants who resided there for non payment of rent
No appearance was entered and judgment was signed in default of appearance
On an application for leave to issue a writ for possession the Court held that the judgment was a nullity as it was given without any determination that it was reasonable to do so in contravention of section 3 1 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Amendment Act 1933
As the decree was a nullity the Court refused to issue a writ for possession
Winn LJ said  Accordinglythe Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Amendment Act 1933 section 31 was made to apply to these premises and that sub section provided No Order or judgment for the recovery
of possession of any dwelling house to which the principal Acts apply or for the ejection of a tenant therefrom shall be 1  983 437 made or given unless the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such a judgment and  One or other of two additional conditions is satisfied
It is perfectly plain from what I have said that before the judgment in default of appearance was entered no court had determined whether it was reasonable to make such an order or give such a judgment
In my view therefore by express force of that section the judgment in default of appearance here was a nullity
It was according to its terms a judgment for recovery of possession of these premises and that is something which the section prohibits unless there has been a prior determination by the court that it was reasonable to give such a judgment As the decree for the delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord is a nullity it cannot be enforced or executed either by the landlord or by the landlord s son Muni Subrat
The decree in so far as it directs the removal of the machinery from the premises is clearly valid and separable from the rest of the decree and may be executed by Muni Subrat
In the result it is declared that a the objections as to the validity of the award cannot be entertained in the execution proceedings b the decree in so far as it directs delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord is a nullity and cannot be executed either by Muni Subrat or by Mehtab Singh and c the decree in so far as it directs removal of the machinery is valid and may be executed by Muni Subrat
Subrat to the declarations mentioned above the appeals are dismissed
There will be no order as to the costs in this Court
YP Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The tenants occupying the ground floor of a building set up a workshop therein
According to the landlord s son M who resided in the first floor the workshop was a nuisance and caused him great annoyance
M and tenants agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration
The landlord was not a party to the agreement
The award directed that the tenants would run workshop up to certain time and  thereafter remove the machinery
and on that day give
vacant possession of the ground floor to the landlord
The award was signed by the arbitrators the tenants and M and it was attested by the landlord
It was filed in Court under section 14 of the Arbitration Act
The tenants and M stated in Court that they had no objections against the award
The Court pronounced judgment according to the award and decree followed
On the expiry of the date fixed for removing the machinery and for vacating the premises M and the landlord jointly applied for the execution of the decree
The tenants objected under section 47 Code of Civil Procedure to the execution contending that i the award was beyond the scope of the reference and was invalid and the decree based on the invalid award was void ii the decree was passed in contravention of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 and was void and iii the landlord could not execute the decree
HELD i The award was filed in Court under section 14 of the Arbitration Act and on notice to the tenants and in their presence a decree was passed according to the award under section 17
It was not open to the tenants then to take the objection that the award was in excess of the authority on the arbitrators or was otherwise invalid
Having regard to the scheme of ss 14 to 17 and 31 to 33 all questions regarding the validity of the award had to be determined by the Court in which the award was filed and by no other Court
An award which is invalid on any ground can be set aside under section 30
After a decree is passed on the award it is not open to the parties to the reference to raise any objection as to the validity of the award
As between them the decree conclusively determines that the award is valid
Nor can the decree be pronounced to be a nullity oh the ground that the award was invalid
435 E G Rabindra Deb Manna vs Jogendra Deb Manna AIR 1923 Cal 410 and Shib Kristo Daw vs Sottish Chandra Dutt approved
ii The decree for delivery of possession to the landlord was a nullitv and could not be enforced in execution
Section 131 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 prohibited the Court from passing a decree or order for recovery of possession of any premises in 433 favour of a landlord against a tenant except in such a suit or proceeding instituted by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of possession on one of the grounds stated therein and unless the Court was satisfied that a ground of eviction existed
The decree in the present case was on the face of it one for recovery of possession of the premises in favour of a landlord against a tenant
The Court passed the decree according to an award under section 17 of the in a proceeding to which the landlord was not a party without satisfying itself that a ground of eviction existed
436 C E Peachey Property Corpn
Robinson 1966 2 All ER981 applied
iii The decree in so far as it directed the removal of the machinery from the premises was clearly
valid and separable from the rest of the decree and could be executed by M