- (1.) Sidhu and Wazir Chand have filed a revision against the judgment dated March 15, 1978, passed by the District Judge, Hissar, whereby their objections to the execution of a decree in an execution appeal were dismissed. The objections had earlier been allowed by the Senior Sub Judge, Hissar, by this order dated March 5, 1974, holding that the order of eviction which was being executed by Hari Chand was a nullity and hence was inexecutable. Hari Chand having died in the proceedings before the appellate Court, he is being represented in this Court by this legal representatives.
(2.) The point for determination in this revision is whether an order of eviction based on a compromise between the parties could be passed under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and as to whether objections with regard to its execution could be taken in an executing Court by the judgment-debtors.
(3.) It was in the year 1965 that Hari Chand had filed an application for eviction of Chanda Ram respondent No. 6 from a house primarily on the ground of necessity for personal residence. The house was an evacuee one and Chanda Ram was its allottee under the Custodian. Subsequently Hari Chand became its owner through transfer from the Rehabilitation authorities. Five other persons who included two of the appellants had started residing with Chanda Ram and for that reason they had been impleaded as respondents in the eviction application. The ground for eviction were also non-payment of rent and the fact that the tenant had committed some acts which were likely to impair the utility of the building. There was also this allegation that the tenant had been guilty of such acts and conduct which were nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings in the neighborhood. None of these grounds was believed by the Rent Controller, Hissar, who dismissed the eviction application by an order dated April 17, 1967, copy of which on record is Exhibit JDW1/3. Hari Chand then filed an appeal to the District Judge, Hissar in his capacity as the Appellate Authority. Both the appellants were impleaded as respondents in the appeal but they did not make their appearance and consequently were proceeded against ex parte. Chanda Ram being the main respondent, his statement in support of the compromise before the Appellate Authority was recorded on March 12, 1968. On behalf on the other respondents who had appeared, the statement of their counsel was recorded. Following is the brief order dated March 12, 1968 (Exhibit JDW1/1) which was then passed by the Appellate Authority so as to evict the respondents from the house in dispute :- "The parties have stated that a compromise has reached between them. Their statements have been recorded. For statements of the parties and their counsel, I accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and order the ejectment of the respondents from the building in dispute. The respondents shall, however, deliver its possession to the appellant on or before 12.5.1968. In case of default, the appellant shall be entitled to have its possession by way of execution. The parties are left to bear their own costs.";