A. S. Bains, J. - (1.) Smt. Krishna Chaudhry has filed this petition against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, vide which he held that she has no locus standi to challenge the order of the Rent Controller vide which her objection petition was dismissed.
(2.) The fact giving rise to this petition are:- "Landlord Bodh Raj, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the landlord) filed an ejectment application in the Court of the Rent Controller against Ranbir Singh (hereinafter called as the tenant) the husband of the present petitioner. He also joined the petitioner as a party. His application was allowed by the Rent Controller and the order of ejectment was passed. The ejectment order was passed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between tenant and the 'landlord. According to the terms of the compromise the ejectment order was to be passed on the conditions that the order shall not be executable before 31st Dec., 1973 and thereafter also the landlord shall not be entitled to sell the house or give it on rent up to 1st of Jan., 1975. It was further provided in the compromise that if any of the conditions was violated by the landlord then it shall be permissible for the tenant to recover possession of the demised premises. It was further stipulated that up to the actual handing over the possession, the rent shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 60.00 per month to the landlord for use and occupation of the demised premises. On the basis of this compromise the tenant was to vacate the premises on or before 31st Dec., 1973 but the tenant filed to vacate the premises in spite of the clear undertaking given by him before the Rent Controller. Thereafter the landlord filed the present application on 4th Jan., 1974 for the execution of the ejectment order passed against the tenant and the present petitioner. In that application the tenant the husband of the present petitioner, did not file any objections. But the present petitioner filed the objection on the ground that in fact she was a tenant and not her husband and that he had no authority in law to compromise with the landlord on her behalf. These objections were over ruled by the Rent Controller. Dissatisfied by the order of the Rent Controller, the present petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who also dismissed the appeal on the ground that she has no locus standi to file application as she was not a tenant while dismissing the appeal the learned Additional District Judge also held that the ejectment order was illegal as it could not be passed."
(3.) Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller was illegal and could not be executed and it was not open to the learned Additional District Judge to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner. His argument is that the order is a nullity and hence cannot to executed. I do not find any merit in this contention. The learned Additional District Judge has wrongly held that the ejectment order is illegal. The landlord was to challenge this finding but since he could not file any revision or appeal against that finding because ultimately the order was in his favour, therefore, he could no challenge it. Otherwise the finding of the learned Additional District Judge is patently wrong. In para 6 of the order he has mentioned that according to the compromise, the order was not to be executed upto 31st Dec., 1973 and thereafter the landlord was not entitled to let it out or to sell it up to 1st Jan., 1975. I have perused the statement of the tenant Ranbir Singh which is in the following terms: "The case has been compromised between the 'parties The rejectment petitioner may be accepted and an ejectment order may be passed with the condition that the petitioner will not take out execution of the ejectment order till 31-12-1973. The petitioner requires this house for his personal necessity, therefore, after obtaining possession he himself will occupy the house in dispute at least for one year. If during this period of one year he either not occupied the house himself or rented out any portion of the same to any body till 1-1-1975, the respondents will be entitled to get the possession back from the landlord. The petitioner had already received rent up to 30-6-1971. The respondent shall be responsible to pay compensation for the use and occupation after that dated till they hand over the possession at the rate of Rs. 60 P.M." The statutory requirement was pleaded in the application for ejectment of the landlord, that he requires it for his personal use and this fact is admitted by the tenant. It is further stipulated that he will not hire or sell it up to 1st Jan., 1975 and if he does so the tenant would take possession again. Hence, I hold that the statutory requirement is fulfilled by the compromise entered into by the landlord and tenant and on that basis the order was passed. In Smt. Nai Bahu Vs. Lala Ramnarayan and others 1978 Rent Law Reporter 53 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court in an indentical matter observed as under: "When a compromise decree is challenged as a nullity in the course of its execution the Executing Court can examine relevant materials to, find out whether statutory grounds for eviction existed in law. If the pleadings and other materials on the record made out a prima facie case about the existence of statutory grounds for eviction a compromise decree cannot be held to be invalid and the Executing Court will have to give effect to it. " The principle of law as laid down in this authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, as I observed earlier, the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the ejectment order is illegal and cannot he executed, is not warrant by the facts on record. Consequently that finding is set aside.;