Summary
J instituted a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent under clauses (a) and (e) of s. 13 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 in respect of a house situ-ate in Delhi, against the tenant. The grounds on which ejectment was sought were non-payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement of the landlord. A decree of ejectment only was passed on the basis of compromise. The decree holder filed an application for execution. The ten-ant raised objections one of which was that the decree was not based on the findings of the Court but on a compromise and was therefore a nullity. The Executing Court dismissed the objections and the order was upheld in appeal by the Senior Sub Judge. The High Court dismissed the revision petition. Thereafter the house in question was transferred by sale. A fresh application for execution was filed against the present respondents which was allowed by the Executing Court. An appeal having failed the respondents filed a revision in the High Court. A Single Judge allowed the revision application accepting the respondents plea that the decree was a nullity and rejecting the plea of the decree holder that the objection was barred by constructive res judicata. 'Me latter plea was rejected on the ground that the decision of the courts in the first set of execution proceedings on the question of validity of the decree was a pure question of law. The decree holders appealed to this Court with certificate. Allowing the appeal,
HLD : The High Court fell into an error in considering that the decisions of the Courts in the previous execution proceedings involved a pure question of law. In the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge given in the first set of execution proceedings the various circumstances were considered by which the learned judge came to the conclusion that the court which passed the decree for eviction was satisfied that one or more of the grounds mentioned in s. 13 of the Rent Control Act had been made out. The decision given in the first set of execution proceedings was thus not one of law only but of a mixed question of law and fact.Such a decision undoubtedly would operate as res judicata.In execution proceedings s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply in terms but the rule of constructive res judicata has always been applied. [256D, G-H]In view of the above decision the question whether the decree was a nullity did not survive for consideration.Bahadur Singh & Another v. Muni-Sabrat Dass & Another [1968]2 S.C.R. 432, referred to.Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors. v. Dossibai N. B.Jeejeebhoy, [1970] 3 S.C.R. 830, applied.See the full content of this document
Extract
Kani Ram And Anr. VS. Smt. Kazani And Ors.
PETITIONER: KANI RAM AND ANR.Vs.RESPONDENT: SMT. KAZANI AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT19/04/1972BENCH: GROVER, A.N.BENCH: GROVER, A.N.HEGDE, K.S.MITTER, G.K.CITATION: 1972 AIR 1427 1973 SCR (1) 254ACT: Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, s 13.-Decree of ejectment passed after compromise between landlord and tenant-Court passi...
See the full content of this document