SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) SHORT question which arises for determination in this revision is as to under what circumstances a compromise decree passed in a suit for eviction can be declared by the executing Court as nullity ?
(2.) THIS question has emerged in the following circumstances :- (i) The decree holder petitioner (for short the decree holder) instituted a suit for eviction against the judgment debtor non-petitioner (for short the judgment debtor) in the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur City on the grounds of default in making payment of rent, reasonable and bona fide necessity and nuisance. The judgment debtor neither filed written statement nor did he controvert the facts averred in the plaint. The suit, however, was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City. (ii) A compromise was entered into between the parties on 9.1.1987. The judgment debtor admitted in the compromise that he did not want to contest the suit but only sought time to vacate the premises in question. He further admitted that he would hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the decree holder on or before 20.5.1988 and would not remain in possession of the property thereafter and would pay Rs. 1,300/- per month to the decree holder from the date of compromise till he vacates the said premises. In case he fails to hand over the vacant possession by 20.5.1988, the decree holder would be entitled to get the decree executed in order to evict the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor further agreed that the decree holder may withdraw Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the judgment debtor towards rent in the Court of Additional Munsif No. 5, Jaipur City. It was prayed that the suit filed by the decree holder be decreed on the basis of compromise. (iii) The trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of said compromise on 19.1.1987. The compromise deed was made part of the decree. (iv) The judgment debtor did not vacate the suit premises as agreed by him, therefore, the decree holder initiated execution proceedings. The judgment debtor filed objection petition u/s 47 CPC to effect that the decree passed by the Court on 19.1.1987 was nullity and was inexecutable. (v) The executing Court allowed the objections and declared that the decree passed on 19.1.1987 was nullity and was inexecutable. (vi) Against the order of the executing Court present action for filing this revision has been resorted to. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record.
(3.) THE point which falls for determination in this revision has been subject matter of consideration in several decisions of the Supreme Court. In Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Das, 1969(2) SCR 432 : 1969 RCR 151, a decree for eviction based on an award without anything more was found to be a nullity as it was held to have been passed against the prohibitory mandate of Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. Following the said decision the compromise decree was also held to be a nullity in the case of Kaushalya Devi v. K.L. Bansal, AIR 1970 SC 838 : 1969 RCR 703 (SC). The earlier two decisions were followed again in Ferozilal Jain v. Man Mal, AIR 1970 SC 794 : 1970 RCR 375 (SC). In all the three cases the decrees were found to have violated Section 13(1) of the Delhi Act of 1952.;