KANI RAM AND ANR. versus SMT. KAZANI AND ORS.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 254 · Decided: 19-04-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

254 
KANI RAM AND ANR. 
v. 
SMT. KAZANI AND ORS. 
April 19, 1972 
(K. S. Hl!GDE, A. N. GROVER AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, s 13.-Decree of ejectment 
passed after compromise between landlord and tenant-Court passing 
decree satisfied on facts that provisions of s. 
13 are complied with-
Quest'on whether such decree is valid is a mixed question of fact and law 
to wh'ch principle of constructive res judicata applies. 
J instituted a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent under clauses 
(a) and (e) of s. 13 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 in res-
pect of a house situate in Delhi, against the tenant. The grounds on 
which ejectment was sought were non-payment of rent and 
bona 
fide 
personal requirement of ti\e landlord. 
A decree of ejectment only was 
passed on the basis of compromise. The decree holder filed ~n ·applica-
tion fdr execution. The tenant raised objections one of which was that the 
decree was not based on the findings of the Court but on a compromise 
and was theref()re a nullity. 
The Executing Court dismissed the objec-
tions and the order was upheld in appeal by the Senior Sub Judge. The 
High Court dismissed the revision petition. Thereafter the house in ques-
tion was transferred by sale. A fresh application for execution was filed 
against the present respondents which was allowed by the Executing Court. 
An appeal having failed the respondents filed a revision in the High Court. 
A Single Judge allowed the revision application accepting the respondents 
plea that the d_ecree was a nullity and rejecting the plea of the decree-
holder that the objection was barred by constructive res judicata. 
The 
latter plea was rejected on the ground that the decision of the courts in 
the first· set of execution proceedings on the question of validity of the 
clecree was a pure question of law. The decree holders appealed to this 
Court with certific)lte. Allowing the appeal, 
. 
HLD : The High Court fell into an error in considering that the 
decisions of the Courts in the previous execution proceedings involved a 
pure question of law. 
In the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge 
given in the first set of execution proceedings the various circumstances 
were considered by which the learned judge came to the conclusion that 
the court which passed the decree for eviction was satisfied that one or 
more of the groun&; mentioned in s. 13 of the Rent Control Act had 
been made out. The decision given in the first set of execution proceed-
ings was thus not one of law only but of a mixed question of law and 
fact. 
Such a decision undoubtedly would operate as 
res iudicata. 
In 
execution proceedings s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply 
in terms but the rule of constructive res 
judicata bas 
always 
been 
applied. 
[256D, G-HJ 
In Yiew of the above decision the question whether the decree was a 
nu11ity did not survive for consideration. 
Bahadur Singh & Another v. Muni-Sabrat Dass & Another [19681 Z.-
S. C.R. 432. referred to, 
Mathura Prasad Ba;oo Jaiswal & Ors. v. Dossibai N. B. Jee;eebhoy, 
[19701 3 S.C.R. 830, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 247 of 1971. 
A 
' 
,. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
KAN! RAM v. KAZAN! (Grover, J.) 
255 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 27th August, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision 
No. 554 of 1969. 
0. C. Mathur and P. C. Bhartarl, for the appellants. 
B 
Sardar Bahadur Saharya, Vishnu Bahadur Saharya and 
Y ougindra Khushalani, for the respondents. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the court was delivered by 
Grover, J, This is an appeal by special leave from 
a 
judgment of the Delhi High Court. 
One Jaigopal instituted a suit for ejectment and recovery of 
rent under clauses (a) and (e) of s. 13 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent 
Control Act 1952 in respect of a house situate in Pahargunj against 
the tenant. 
The grounds on which ejectment was sought were 
non-payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement of the 
landlord. 
The suit was resi9ted by the ttmant on various grounds 
but ultimately on June 2, 1956 a decree for ejectment was passed 
on the basis or a compromise. 
The suit with regard to the reco-
very of arrears of rent was dismissed. 
On June 6, 
1959, the 
decree holder filed an application for execution of the decree. The 
tenant raised various objections; one of the objections was that the 
decree sought to be executed was based on a comprom

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