K.K. CHARI versus R. M. SESHADRI

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 691 · Decided: 16-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

0 
E 
f 
G 
H 
K. K. CHARI 
v. 
R. M. SESHADRI 
March 16, 1973 
6!H 
[A. ALAGJRISWAMI, J. D. DUA & C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J 
M~dras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) 
Act, 
1960,-Section 
10(3) (a) (i)-Bonafide requirement of land!ord-Co111pron1h.: decree-
whether a separate enquiry and satisfaction ap~1rt /roni the cvmpron1ise 
necessary for passing eviction order. 
The appellant bought. the suit premises and filed 
legal 
proceedings 
against the respondent, who was a tenant in the suit premisl!s, for evic-
tion on the ground of appellant's bonafide requirements u/s 1()(3) df the 
Madras Rent Control Act. The tenant contested the Jandlord's ct-aim 
inter a/ia, on the ground that the appellant's claim was not bona fide, 
At 
the trial, the appellant examined himself, and produced voluminous docu-
mentary 
evidence. 
The 
appellant 
was· 
not 
cross-exan1ined. 
The 
appellant 
and 
the respondent 
then 
entered 
into 
a 
compro~ise 
in 
which 
the tenant 
gave 
up 
all 
his defences 
and 
was 
gtven 
three months'' time to vacate the premises. 
A decree for eviction 
was 
accordingly passed by the Small Causes Court. The respondent did not 
vacate the premises and when the decree was sought 
to 
be executed 
challenged the decree of eviction principally on the ground that the Small 
Causes Court had no jurisdiction to pass 
a decree only in t.erms of the 
compromise decree and that Court had a duty to independently satisfy itself 
about the bona fide requirement of the landlord. 
The High Court held 
that the order of the 
Small 
Causes Court 
was without 
jurisdiction. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (i) The true position is that an order of evictiCJ> based on 
consent of the parties is not necessarily void 
if the jurisdictional fact. 
namely, the existence of one or more df the .conditions mentioned in 
Section 10 were shown to have existed when the Court made the order. 
Satisfaction of the Court which is a pre-requisite for the order of eviction, 
need not be by the manifestation borne out by judicial findings. It at some 
stage, the Court was called upon to apply its mind to the question and 
there was sufficient material before it before the parties in,·it-ed it to pass 
an order in terms of their agreement, it is possible to postulate that the 
Court was satisfied about the grounds on which the order of eviction \\'as 
based. In the instant case, withdrawal of defences by the tenant expressly 
amounts to the tenant admitting that the landlord has made out his case 
regarding his requirement requiring the premises for his O\Vn occupation 
belr.g bona fied. 
[704E] 
(ii) From the particular facts of this case, it can be 
said that the 
decree for eviction has not been solely passed on the bas'is of the com· 
promise. 
The evidence adduced by the respondent upto the stage 
at 
which the compromise was entered into, was enough to establish the land· 
lord's claim. 
Bahadur Singh and another v. Muni Subrat Das [1969] Z S.C.R. 432, 
Kaushalya Devi v. K. L. Bansal A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 838, and Ferozi Lal v. 
Manmal and Others A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 794, distinguished on facts. 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 3 S.C.R. 
Per Alagiriswami, J. 
An eviction order based 
op 
a compromise 
~ 
where the landlord has asked for possession on any one of the grounds 
on the basis of which he could ask for possessio~, is valid. [708Dl 
Barton v. Fincham, [1921] 2 K.B. 291, 
Babu Ram Sharma v. Pal 
Singh, [1959] P.L.R. 33, V~cs Dev v. Nikhiram, A.I.R. 1960 Punjab 514 
cited with approval. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 447 of 
1971. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 15, 1970 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 797 
of 1970. 
M. C. Setalvad, and K. Jayaram, for the appellant. 
V, M. Tarkundi:, E. C. Agarwala, A. T. M. Samptith and 
M. M. L. Srivastava, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of I. D. DuA and c. A. VAID!ALINGAM, JJ. 
was delivered by VA!D!ALINGAM, J. A. ALAGIRISWAMI, J. gave a 
separate opinion. 
VAIDJALINGAM, J .-The short, question that arises for consi-
deration in this appeal, by special leave; is whether ~ 
order dated 
March 31, 1969, passed by the Court of Small Causes, Madras, 
in H.R.C. No. 983 of 1968 directing the eviction of the respondent-
tenant is a nullity and as such not··executable. The facts leading 
upto the passing of the order niay be stated : 
The appellant was occupying a premises in Madras as a tenant 
His landlady filed an application H.R.C. No. 1

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