G.R.MAJIITHIA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the executing court whereby it sustained the objections filed by the tenant regarding the executability of the order passed by the Rent Controller ordering his eviction.
(2.) THE petitioner (for short the decree-holder) filed an application for eviction against the respondents. A compromise was arrived at between parties and their statements were recorded. The tenant undertook to vacate the demised premised by May 14, 1981 and in case of default, the decree holder was entitled to secure possession through execution. The tenant did not comply with the terms of the compromise and filed objections relating to the executability of the order. His primary ground was that the Rent Controller could not pass the order of eviction if he was satisfied that the conditions of Section 13(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and Section 13(3)(a), (i), (a), (b), (c), (d) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) are fulfilled. This contention prevailed with the Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller in arriving at this decision took into consideration certain observations from the Supreme Court judgments where it is mentioned that it is imperative for the landlord to prove that the conditions mentioned in Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) (b) (c) (d) of the Act are fulfilled. Those authorities have no applicability to the facts of the instant case. When the tenant agreed to vacate the premises and only prayed for time to be allowed tto vacate the demised premises, he will be deemed to have accepted the averments made in the petition. The Rent Controller will be deemed to have applied his mind to the provisions to the statute. It cannot successfully be urged that the Rent Controller was not conscious of his duties under the Act when he accepted the terms of the compromise. He did so keeping in view the mandatory provisions of the statute. The approach of learned Rent Controller is not correct. The order passed on the concession of the parties has the same force as an order passed after contest. No material has been brought on record to suggest that the mandatory conditions of the statute did not exist justifying the order of eviction or that the order of eviction was passed on some non-existent grounds. The order under revision is set aside. The learned Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the execution proceedings expeditiously. Revision accepted.;