- (1.)In a suit for recovering possession of a shop on the grounds of reasonable and bonfide requirement and unlawful subletting, a compromise was arrived at between the parties thereto and the subtenant was given a period of 7 years to vacate it. The consent terms were filed after issues were framed. The head tenant was also a party to the compromise. The contention raised in the execution proceeding that the decree was a nullity, as no decree had been passed against the tenant-in-chief and also because, before passing the consent decree, the learned trial judge had not applied his mind was rejected. As the consent terms were signed by all the parties to the suit and their advocates, it was clear that the tenant had impliedly agreed to suffer a decree for eviction, because the landlord was entitled to have a decree under the law in the circumstances that, there was sub-tenancy and/ or he required the suit shop for bonfide requirement.
(2.)In view of the amendment in Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal lies against an order passed under Section 47 thereof, in the execution proceeding.
(3.)It was held that it could not be said that the trial court acted with material irregularity or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or the order occasioned failure of justice to call for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Rule discharged.