SULEMAN NOORMOHAMED ETC. ETC. versus UMARBHAI JANUBHAI

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 23-02-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
• 
387 
SULEMAN NOORMOHAMED ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UMARBHAI JANUBHAI 
February 23, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J 
Civil Procedure Code--Order 23 Rule 3-While 
recording 
compromise 
whether court should niention that the 
compromise 
is lawfuf-.Can 
it be 
presumed-Bo1nbay Rent Act 1947-Sec. l2(3)b-Decree based on compro· 
mise whether a nullity-Statutory ground for eviction whether can be made 
out from the material before the court-Cornpro1nise deed by 
which 
tenant 
agrees to pay arrears of rent as den1anded in the plaint, if sufficient. 
The appellant landlord ftled a suit against the respondent tenant claiming 
a decree for eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent and 
for 
bonafide 
personal necessity in accordance with the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging 
House Rates Control Act, 1947. The respondent filed a written 
statement. 
An exparte decree was passed w4ich was set aside on the application of the 
respondent. Ultimately, the suit was disposed of on the compromise between 
the parties. According to the terms of the compromise the tenant 
was 
to 
hand over possession of the suit premises to the landlord within a period 
of 
3 yec.rs. 
The tenant did not vacate on the expiry of the period and contested 
the execution on the ground that the decree was a nullity. The Trial Court 
held that the decree was a nullity. That was upset by the Appellate Court. 
The High Court accepted the Revision Application filed by the tenant and held 
that the compromise decree· is a nullity and. therefore, cannot be 
executed. 
The High Court held that the order passed by the Court did not disclose any 
satisfaction recorded by the Court about the existence of one or more grounds 
of eviction under the Act, and in the compromise pursis also 
there 
is 
no 
admission on the part of the tenant express or implied. 
Allowing the appe-al, 
HELD: 1. It has been laid down by the Court in th~ case of 
Nagindas 
Ramdas '1hat existence· of any of the statutory grounds is a sine quo non to the 
exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Court in order to enable it to 
nlake 
a 
decree for eviction. It was also laid down that if at the time of passing of 
the decree there Vilas some material before the Court on the basis of which the 
Court could be pri!na facie satisfied about the existence of a statutory ground 
for eviction it \vould be presumed that the court was 
so satisfied and the 
decree for eviction though apparently passed on the basis of a compromise 
would be valid. This Court also held that such material might take the shape 
of either of evidence recorded or prcduced or express or implied 
admission 
made in the co1nrrcmise a.greement itself. In Rosilanlal's case this Cou!"t held 
that the Court can pass a decree on the basis of a compromise and that in such 
a situation the only thing to be seen is whether the compromise is in violation 
of the requirements or law. [389 C-G] 
Nagindas Ran1das v. Dalpatram lchharani @ Brijra1n and Ors., [1974] 2 
S.C.R. 544 and Ros/Jan Lal v. Madan Lal, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 878, relied on. 
2. There is abundant intrinsic material in the compromise itself to indicate 
that the decree passed upon its basis was not in violation of the Act but was 
in accordance with it. If there is no dispute about the standard rent or no 
bonafide dispute or the dispute raised is a mere pretence of it a decree can 
follow under section 12(3)(b) of the Act i1n a suit in which ro.1t is not due 
for 6 mon\hs or ~ore b~t _is d!-le even for lesser pe_riod. 
The tenant will get 
the protection against eviction 1n such a case only 1f he pays or tenders 
in 
court on the first date of hearing of the suit or such other date as the Court 
may fix. 
In the instant case·, the High Court was not right that on the face 
A. 
c 
E 
F 
G 
A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 3 S.C.R· 
of the compromise pursis or the order passed thereon there was no material 
to show that the tenant had either expressly or impliedly suffered a decree for 
eviction as being liable to be evicted in accordance with section 
12(3)(b). 
While recording the compromise under order 23 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure 
Code, it is not necessary for the Court to say in express terms in the order 
that it was satisfied that the compromise was a lawful one. 
It will 
be 
pre~ 
sumed to have done so unless the contrary is shown. 
But that apart, on exami~ 
nation of the plaint which certainly should be looked into and which must hav

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