1968 (10) TMI 107 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the award and its impact on the decree
2. Decree passed in contravention of the Rent Act
3. Enforceability of the decree by the landlord and Muni Subrat
4. Validity and enforceability of the decree for removal of machinery

Analysis:

1. Validity of the award and its impact on the decree:
The tenants raised objections to the execution of the decree based on the award, arguing that the award was beyond the scope of the reference and invalid. However, the Court held that once a decree is passed on an award, the parties cannot challenge the validity of the award. The Court emphasized that all questions regarding the validity of the award had to be determined by the Court where the award was filed, and after the decree is passed, parties are bound by it.

2. Decree passed in contravention of the Rent Act:
The decree directed the tenants to deliver possession of the premises to the landlord, but it was found to be in contravention of Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The Court noted that the decree for possession was passed without satisfying the grounds for eviction as required by the Rent Act, making it a nullity that cannot be enforced in execution.

3. Enforceability of the decree by the landlord and Muni Subrat:
The Court determined that the decree for possession of the premises to the landlord was invalid and could not be enforced by either the landlord or Muni Subrat. However, the decree for the removal of machinery was deemed valid and separable from the rest of the decree, allowing Muni Subrat to execute it.

4. Validity and enforceability of the decree for removal of machinery:
The Court affirmed the validity of the decree directing the removal of machinery from the premises, stating that it was enforceable by Muni Subrat. This part of the decree was considered distinct and valid, separate from the portion related to possession of the premises.

In conclusion, the objections to the validity of the award were dismissed, the decree for possession was deemed a nullity due to contravention of the Rent Act, and only the decree for removal of machinery was upheld as valid and enforceable by Muni Subrat. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded in this Court.