1977 (10) TMI 114 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compromise decree.
2. Applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955.
3. Requirement for registration of the decree.
4. Grounds for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Compromise Decree:
The Supreme Court examined whether the compromise decree was a nullity. The High Court had previously held that the decree was invalid as it purported to create a lease without registration and was passed in contravention of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The Supreme Court, however, found that the decree did not create a lease but was a lawful compromise for eviction, stating, "the intention of the parties was not to enter into the relationship of a landlord and tenant." The Court concluded that the decree was not a nullity and was executable.

2. Applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955:
The tenants argued that the decree was invalid as it was passed in violation of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955. The Supreme Court noted that a landlord cannot obtain eviction unless the requirements of the Act are satisfied. The Court found that the trial court had applied its mind to the relevant questions and was satisfied that a valid decree under the Act could be passed. The Court stated, "the compromise decree in this case is a lawful decree of eviction founded on permissible statutory ground."

3. Requirement for Registration of the Decree:
The tenants contended that the decree was invalid due to non-registration u/s 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, relying on its previous decision in Girdharilal v. Hukam Singh, which held that a compromise decree does not require registration unless it necessarily involves the execution of a deed of conveyance. The Court found no intention to create a lease and thus no requirement for registration.

4. Grounds for Eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955:
The tenants argued that the eviction was sought for a composite purpose (residential and business), which was not permissible since the premises were let for non-residential use. The Supreme Court distinguished the provisions of the M.P. Act from those of the Delhi Act, stating that under the M.P. Act, a landlord can seek eviction for business purposes even if the premises were let for non-residential use. The Court concluded that the grounds for eviction were valid and the decree was lawful.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, restoring the orders of the lower courts. The appeal was allowed with costs. The Court also stayed the execution of the decree until January 31, 1978, based on the respondents' undertaking to vacate the premises and pay mesne profits.