9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of the decree under execution based on alleged subletting without court's satisfaction under Section 13(1) of the Rent Control Act. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the validity of a decree under execution in a case involving alleged subletting without the court's satisfaction under Section 13(1) of the Rent Control Act. The appellant leased out a shop to the 1st respondent with a clause prohibiting subletting. Upon alleging subletting to the second respondent, the appellant sought eviction under the Rent Control Act. During the trial, a compromise was reached, resulting in a compromise decree without any reference to subletting. The 1st respondent was given four years to vacate, but the second respondent resisted execution, claiming non-binding status. A subsequent compromise extended the second respondent's stay, leading to further execution resistance based on the decree's nullity due to the absence of court satisfaction under Section 13(1). The Court highlighted that a decree for possession can only be passed if the court is satisfied with the grounds under Section 13(1) of the Rent Control Act. In this case, the court did not apply its mind to the alleged subletting, passing the decree solely based on the compromise. As a result, the court lacked competence to issue the decree, rendering it a nullity. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that decrees passed in contravention of Section 13(1) are void, as seen in Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass and Smt. Kaushalya Devi v. K. L. Bansal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decree's nullity and denying execution based on it. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the necessity of court satisfaction under Section 13(1) of the Rent Control Act for passing possession decrees. It underscores that decrees issued without such satisfaction are null and void, prohibiting their execution. The case serves as a reminder of the legal requirements for eviction decrees under rent control laws, ensuring tenant protection and due process in possession disputes.
|
