KAUSHALYA DEVI & ORS. versus SHRI K. L. BANSAL

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 1048 · Decided: 03-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1648 
KAUSHALYA DEVI & ORS. 
v. 
SURI K. L. BANSAL 
December 3, 1968 
[S. M. S!KRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGr>E, JJ.J 
Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, s. 13-Compromise decree 
passed without regard to provisions of s. 13-1/ valid. 
The appellant-plaintiffs fil<:d a suit in February 1956, for the eviction 
of the respondent on the ground that the premises were required for their 
own use, that the defendant already owned a suitable housi> of his own, 
and that the respondent had defaulted in payment of rent, after the defen-
dant had filed 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 ol' the compro-
mise which provided inter a/ia, for the ejectment of the defendant after 
31st December 1958, and fixed the standard rent as agreed. 
The defen-
dant, however, did not vacat" the premises in Decem~r 1958, and pre-
sented an application in February !959 under s. 47 C.P.C., challenging the 
validity of the decree alleging that it bad been passed in contravention of 
the provision of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 arid contending 
that the decree was, therefore, a nullity. He 'failed before the Sub-Judge 
and also in appeal before the Senior Sub-Judge. However, th" High Court 
in revision held in his favour. 
On 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 th.e statutory grounds mentioned in s. 13 of the Act existed. [1050 B] 
Bahadur Singh v. Munl Subrat Dass, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 432, followed. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 98 of 
F 
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. 
S. P. Sinha, G. Bhimsena Rao and M. I. Khowaja, for the 
G 
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 
H 
decision of this Court in Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subra1r Dass(1). 
(I) (1969) 2 S.C.R. 432. 
, 
KAUSHALYA v. K. L. BANSAL (Sikri, 1.) 
1049 
·-
A 
The facts out of which the present appeal arises are these. 
One Raghunath Sharma, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants 
hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff-instituted on February 7, 
1956, suit No .. 53 of 1956 in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, 
• 
Delhi, for the eviction of his tenant, K. L. Bansal, hereinafter 
B 
referred to as the defendant. 
He gave three grounds for eject-
ment in the plaint: ( 1) that the premises were required bona fide 
by the plaintiff for occupation as residence for himself and other 
In 
members of the family, and that he had no other suitable accom-
modation 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. 
c 
The defendant filed a written statement denying these allega-
tions. 
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 : 
D 
"(a) Decree for ejectment be passed in favour of the 
plaintiff against the defendant, the decree will be execu-
table after the 31st December, 1958, if the defendant 
does not give possession till then. 
(b) The standard rent of the premises be fixed at 
' 
E 
Rs. 40/- per mensem, instead of Rs. 50/- paid at pre-
sent 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 
parties." 
F 
On July 6, 1956, the counsel for the parties and the plaintiff 
made a statement on solemn affir1I1ation 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 
G 
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 appli-
cation on February 16, 1959, under s. 47,

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