NAI BAHU versus RAMNARAYAN & OTHERS

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 723 · Decided: 14-10-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

-
NAIBAHU
v.
RAMNARA YAN & OTHERS
October 14, 1977
[P. K. GosWA'1l AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
723
A
Madhya Pradesh Acco1n111odation
Control Act, 1955- Nullity-Consent
B
decree, if a nullity-If requiren1ents of provisions of A ct lnust be satis{ied-
Jflhether pleadings and eridence can be looked into-Whether consent decree
!;'"ljvint.: till!t' to racate ca11 crl'ate .fre.\h tc11a11cy-Constru,;tio11 of a doc1u11ent-
}Vhether dominant i11te11tio11 111ust guide the constructio11-Whether consent de-
cree t.:iving tilne to racatl~ bad for non-registration.
The appellant filed a suit for eviction against the respondent tenant.
All the
witnesses on behalf of the appellant were examined.
Thereafter 2
witnesses
were exnn1ined on behalf of the respondents. At tha•t stage a joint co1npromise
C
petition was filed settling the matter.
The compromise deed provided that the
respondents admitted the full claim of the nppellant for ejecttnent. arrears of rent
and rnesne profits on the conditions that the respondents would put the appellant
in \'ncant and peaceful possession of the entire tenancy premises except certain
. portion and that the said portion would be vacated on the expiry of 5 years;
and that the future nlesne profits would be paid.
Tt also provided that the res-
pondents would be entitled to construct separate latrine and urinal in the -ver-
andah near the staircase; that the respondents would remove their sign boards
to the extent they prevent the proper light and air to the portion of the appellant
D
on the second storey .
. After the 5 years' period expired, the appellant took out execution proceed-
ings which were resisted by the respondents.
The plea of the adjustment raised
by the respondents \V:-io;; neg8tivcd in the first round of litigation. Howev.er, th~
re.:;pondents challenged the decree as a nullity and further contended th<:it the
decree incorporated a lease \Vhich on account of non-registration was invalid
and, therefore, not executable.
The Trial Court rejected the objections raised
by the respondents.
An appeal filed bv the respondents \Vas dismissed.
The
Jligh Court allowed the second appeal filed by the respondents holding that the
tern1 of compromise created a ne\v demise on different terms in regard to the
premises which were not identical with the premises covered by the original
lease. The High Court also held that the decree was passed in contravention
of the provisions of l\Ja<lhya Pradesh Accon1mo<lation .Control Act, 1955. The
High Court also held that compromise purported to create a lease for 5 vcars
which \Vas ineffective on account of non-registration.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: ( 1) It is \Vell-settled that v.1here the Rent Control and Restrictions
Act are in operation a landlord cannot obtain eviction of the tenant unless he
can satisfy the requirements of the provisions in those Acts. It is also v.'ell
settled that if the court does not find the permissible grounds for eviction dis-
closed in the pleadings and other materials on record no consent or compromise
would give jurisdiction to the court to pass a v<1lid decree of eviction.
[726
,G-H]
(2) The court after going through the pleadings and the evidence ca1ne to
the conclusion that there was sufficient material for the court to be satisfied
about the existence of the ground for eviction. The court held that if the
pleadings and other materials on record make out a prima facie case about the
existence of stat11tory grounds for eviction the compromise decree cannot be
t~eld to be invalid and the executing court \Vill have to give effect to it.
[729 D-El
Konclwda Ra1na11u1rthy Subudhi & Anr. v. Gopinath Naik, 1968(2) SCR
559; Rosha11 Lal v. Madan Lal. 1976(1) SCR 878; Girdharilal (dead) by L. Rs
\I. Hukan1 Sin1d1 and Ors. AlR 1977 SC 129; Kartar SinRh v. Cha1nan Lol &
Ors. 1970(1) SCR 9 and K. K. Chari 1·. R. M. Seshadri, 1973 (3) SCR 691,
referred tti.
E
F
G
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] I S.C.R.
A
Dr. Copa[ Dass Vcr1na v. Dr. S. K. Bhardwaj and Another. 1962 (2) SCR
"""'
B
c
678, distinguished.
(3) The Court after a careful consideration of the terms of the con1pron1ise-
and the whole tenor of the compromise came to the conclusion that there \Vas
no intention to create a lease between the parties.
It is the dominant intention
of the docu1nent which must guide the construction of its contents.
In the re-
cital at 3 places it is stated categorically th

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