9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the decree dated September 23, 1964, is a nullity and, as such, in executable. 2. Whether the executing court was competent to go behind the decree and question its validity. 3. Whether the decree was passed without satisfying the statutory grounds for eviction under the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the decree dated September 23, 1964, is a nullity and, as such, in executable: The appellant was a tenant in arrears of rent since October 16, 1961. The landlords served a notice terminating the tenancy and requiring payment of arrears. They subsequently filed a suit for possession based on non-payment of rent for over a year and the bona fide requirement of the premises. A compromise was reached, and a decree was passed on September 23, 1964, with terms including the tenant's agreement to vacate by September 30, 1968, and payment of arrears and mesne profits. The tenant later contended that the decree was a nullity as the court did not satisfy itself about the grounds for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act. The executing court initially accepted this objection, but the Extra Assistant Judge later overturned this, finding ample material in the compromise to satisfy the statutory grounds. 2. Whether the executing court was competent to go behind the decree and question its validity: The executing court rejected the tenant's story of adjustment and satisfaction of the decree but accepted the objection that the decree was void for lack of judicial satisfaction of the eviction grounds. The Extra Assistant Judge, however, found that admissions in the compromise provided sufficient material for the court to be satisfied about the statutory grounds for eviction. The Supreme Court held that if a decree on its face shows some material for statutory grounds, the executing court must accept and execute it. The executing court can look at the original trial court record to verify the existence of such material but cannot question the trial court's findings. 3. Whether the decree was passed without satisfying the statutory grounds for eviction under the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947: The appellant's counsel argued that no decree for eviction could be passed without the Rent Court's satisfaction of statutory grounds based on extrinsic material. The respondent's counsel contended that the statutory grounds were admitted in the compromise, implying the court's satisfaction. The Supreme Court agreed with the latter, noting that admissions in the compromise constituted material facts for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The tenant's admission to pay arrears and mesne profits indicated abandonment of any dispute over standard rent, thus satisfying the statutory ground for eviction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the decree was not a nullity as it was based on sufficient material indicating the statutory grounds for eviction. The executing court was not competent to question the decree's validity if it showed prima facie material for statutory grounds. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
