BAHADUR SINGH & ANR. versus MUNI SUBRAT DASS & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 432 · Decided: 16-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BAHADUR SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
MUNI SUBRAT DASS & ANR. 
Octo~er 16, 1968 
[S. M. SIKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Code of CiviJ Procedure (Act 5 of 1908) s. 41-Decree in 
terms 
of Arbitration Award passed-Objection to validity, if can be raised. 
Indian Arbitration Act (10 of 1940) ss. 
14, 
17, 
31, 
32 end 33-
Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of 1952) s. 
13-Decree con-
travening s. 13, if can be enforced. 
The tenants occupying the ground floor of a building set up a work-
shop therein. 
According to the landlord's son-M, who resided in the 
first floor, the workshop was a nuisance an.d 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 the.reafter 
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 
s. 14 of thOi 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 !he pre-
mises, M and the landlord jointly applied for the execution of the decree. 
The tenants objected under s. 47, Code of Civil Procedure to the exe-
cution 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 s. 14 of the Arbi-
tration Act and on notice to the tenants and in their presence a decree 
was passed according to the award under s. 17. It was not open to 
the tenants then to take the objection that !he 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 regard1ng 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 s. 30. 
After a decree is oassed 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 grouncl that the award was 
invalid. [435 B-Gl 
Rabindra Deb Manna v. logendra Deb Manna A.LR. 1923 Cal. 410, 
and Shib Kristo Daw v. Satish Chandra 
Dut.t 
(1912) 
39 Cal. 
822. 
approved. 
(ii) The decree for delivery of possession to the landlord was a 
nullitv and could not be enforced in execution. 
Section 13(1) of the 
· Deihl and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 prohibited the Court,. from 
passing a decree or order for recovery of possession of any premises in 
A 
' 
B 
.. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
• 
H 
A 
• 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BAHADUR v. M. s. DASS (Bachawat, J.) 
A33 
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 accord-
ing to an award under s. 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in a proceed-
ing to which the landlord was not a party without satisfying itself that a 
ground of eviction existed. [436 C-E] 
Peachey Propenty Corpn. vs. 
Robinson 
[1966] 
2 
All 
E.R.981, 
applied. 
(iii) The1 decree in so far as it directed the removal of the machinery 
from the premises was clearly valid and separabJe from the rest of the 
decree and could be executed by M. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION: Civil 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. 
M. C. Chagla and Lily Thomas, for the appellants (in C.A. 
No. 2464 of 1966) and the respondents (in C.A. Nos. 2465 of 
1966). 
A. K. Sen and I

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.