J.M.TANDON, J. - (1.) THIS execution second appeal is directed against the order of Shri B.S. Yadav, District Judge, Gurgaon, dated February 22, 1975.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in short, are that Smt. Kailash Rani and Smt. Mohni, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being landlords of the premises in dispute, filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against Mul Chand, respondent No. 3, R.N. Khanna, appellant No. 1, and one Sadhu Ram, on the grounds that Mul Chand who was the tenant, had sublet the premises and further was in arrears, or rent for 21 months, at the rate of Rs. 30/ - per mensem. That petition was filed on January 14, 1969. The case was fixed for February 1, 1969, for which date R.N. Khanna, appellant No. 1, had been served but he did not put in appearance and hence ex parte proceedings were taken against him. On that date, the landlords and Mul Chand effected a compromise. Mul Chand admitted the grounds of ejectment against him to be true. It was agreed that the arrears of rent, which came to Rs. 630/ - would be paid in 21 monthly instalments along with the future monthly rent. It was also agreed that Mul Chand would pay the monthly rent regularly on the expiry of 21 months and in default of payment, the order of ejectment passed against him shall be executed. It was also in the agreement that the landlords did not accept the sub -tenants who shall continue holding under Mul Chand and will be liable to be dispossessed in execution of the ejectment order against him. The rent Controller passed the ejectment order in favour of the landlords in terms of the agreement. The monthly rent as also the instalments of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 30/ - per mensem were duly paid for 21 months after the passing of the ejectment order. Thereafter, the rent was paid upto January 31, 1972. Mul Chand respondent No. 3, did not pay rent of the premises in dispute to the landlords thereafter. In May, 1969, Satinder Pal Singh, appellant No. 2, had been inducted as a sub -tenant in place of Sadhu Ram. The rent having not been paid to the landlords after January 31, 1972, the order of ejectment against Mul Chand was sought to be executed. Mul Chand did not object. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, however, raised objections that the order of the Rent Controller sought to be executed was a nullity. On the pleadings of the parties, the Executing Court framed the following issues : - 1. Whether the impugned order is a nullity as alleged ? 2. Whether the objectors have locus standi to file the objections ? 3. Relief. The learned Executing Court found both the issues against the objector -appellants and dismissed their objections vide order dated December 24, 1974. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal against that order, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, vide order dated February 22, 1975. The appellants have consequently filed the present execution second appeal.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the order of the Rent Controller was a nullity inasmuch as it had been passed on the grounds which are not provided for under Section 13 of the Act. According to him, section 13 of the Act does not provide that a tenant shall be liable to be ejected in case he fails to pay future monthly rent regularly. In the instant case, the ejectment order was passed wherein the payment of future rent was also envisaged. The order of ejectment having been passed on a non -statutory ground was a nullity and could not be executed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited Nagiadas Ramdas v. Dalpat Ram Ichharam etc., 1974 R.C.R.(Rent) 148 : (1975) R.C.J. 48 : 1974 Cur. L.J. 57 (S.C.).;