LexNAGINDAS RAMDAS versus DALPATRAM ICHHARAM@ BRIJRAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
544
NAGINDAS RAMDAS
''·
DALPATRAM ICHHARAM@ BRIJRAM AND ORS.
November 30, 1973
[D. G. PALEKAR, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND R. S. SARKARI A, JJ,)
Bombay Rent Act, 1947, Ss. 12 and 13-Compromise decree for evlction-Wf!tn
may M passed.
The rcspondcnt·1andlord instituted a suit under the flomboy Rent Act ror
possession against the appellant-tenant on two Founds, namely, arrears in IXlYmtnt
of rent and bona fide requorement of the prcnuscs for personal use and occupotion.
A compromise decree was passed. When the appellant apphcd for e=ution of the
decree, the appellant contended intc; alia \hat the compromi.<C dccnx had been
passed by the Rent Court wtthout sattsfymg tlself ns to the exoslcucc of &rounds of
eviction under the Act and hence, bcmg 11 nulhty, was not executable. The Executing
Court accepted the contention. _In appeal, the nppellate. Court.sct aside the <fumissa1
and remanded the matter holdms that there were admtss.oons m the comprollllSC it·
self from which the Court could be satisfied nbout the c.'istencc of both the natutary
grounds for eviction alleged in the plnint. A revision to the High Court w-~ di;.
missed.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (I) Tho public policy permeating thL• Act is the protection of ltoan~>
against unreasonable eviction. Construing the provisioros of s.l2.13 and 28 of the Act
in the light of th~ policy, it should be held that the Rent Court under the Act "'
cot competent to lY.lSS a deem: for possession either in in>itum or with the consem
of the parties on a ground which "de/tors the Act or ultra vir<' the Act. TheW...
ten<:e of one of the stntutory grounds mentioned in s. 12 and 13 is o si!lt qliiZ 110n to
the aercisc of junschction by the Rc!ll Court. Parties, by their consent cannot
confer jurisdicuon on the Rent Court to do something which, according to the
legi:Jalive mandate, it could not do. {550C-E]
Shah Rmlkfal Chwrilal v. Sindhl Shyumla/ Mulchand, 12 Guj. La1v Rcporttr
1012, approved.
Dunon v. Fiachom, (19~11 2 K. n. 291 at 299, applied.
(2) The fact that 0. 23 r. 3, C.P.C., i! applicable to the pr~"lliogs does not
remove that fetter or empower the Rent Court to make a d<'Cn:<: for evtction dzlwn
the statu i.e.
Even. under that prov~ion. the Court, be foro ordcnng that the compro-
miSe be rccordtd, IS n:qum:d to sausfy 1L'>Cif al>out the lawfuln= of the agreement
Such lawfuln= or otlw:rwi.se of the agrtlemcnt is to be judged also on the ground
"'hcthcr ~rms of the compromise oro.> consostcnt with th\0 provi>ions of tha Rent
Act, (55JA.C]
(3) Dul, lf at the time of the passing of the dccrt:e there was some matetiU be-
fore the Court on the bas~ of which the
Court could
prima facie be suu.sfit:d
nbout the exm~!'ce of a $latutory ground fur eviction, it will be presumed .that the
coun WiiJ ""QUSflcd and the decree fur eviction though pa.'ISN on the b:lSIS ofthC
compromise: ~vould be valid. Such material may be in form of evidence roconkd~
produced or II rn:l)' be partly or. wholly bo tn the shape of ~'pn.-;s or
unpl~ ••
udmtSJ.tons nude on tho compronll5e ngn:cmenl. Admissoous tf tnoe ami cl~r .-
by fa~ the be>t PI'O<Jf of lite facts adoniucd e<JX."Cially when they arcjuuidal adn11""""
admt>,.blc under 1. ~H, Evidcn.;:e Act. [552l'·H)
ln the J?<=nt ca<e, bcc:luS<l of the admission to pay
the urrears ~f ['!RI t~
m~s'!" pruhts at_ th'l' contractual mtc "!ld the withdr.t\\1ng of his
apph-"U1"~
ll.auon of ttand'u.d rent, th~r•. was no do.putc with regan!"' Ute amount ot :;t:l.
of
rent, and th..~ »at an :>dnu.<>ton that ~he 1\:nt was in um:aN. The adonisst<>!'
the>e matenal f~tcu con.~lltute Q ground rur eviction under 1, 12 (3JI(a). [55JB·DI
JJn!'a4ur Singh v. Mun/ Sul>rut Duss, [19691 2 S.C.R. 432, Kt~ush.llra Dj;7;j
Slt~l 1\. L Ba11>uf1 (1969) 2 S.CR. Ji14:S, an<J FttC!:I Lui Juin v. M"" ,ll<li.(
3 S.C.C. J~l, herd tnapphcablc.
A
c
D
F 1
G
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
NAGL'IIlDAS V, QALPATRAM (Sarkaria, 1.)
545
K. K. Chari v. B. M. Seshadri, (1973] 1 S.C.R. 761, followed.
Jt~hw(llll RaJ Mulukchand v. ,Anandila!- Bapala!, · [196S] 2, S.C.R. 3SO,
dis-
tilliuished.
· (4) Further the Executing Court is not competent to go behind the decree if the
decree on the face of it discloses some material on the basis of which the rent court
coulJ be satisfied with regard to the existence of a statutory ground for eviction.
If on the face of it the decree does not show the existence of such material or juris-
4ictionalExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.