( 1 ) THIS second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 16th May, 1980 confirming the order of the Additional Controller dated 5th April, 1980 dismissing the objections of the appellant-tenant who claims that the eviction order dated 24th March, 1973 based on a compromise between the parties, is a nullity and as such not executable. The counsel submits that there was no satisfaction of the Controller for the passing of the order of eviction against the appellant under Section 22 of the Act, that no material was available on record on the basis of which the Controller could have passed the order of eviction. His submission is that the respondent- landlord has never been a public institution and that respondent never claimed or required the suit premises for the furtherance of its activities. His next objection is that no opportunity was given to him to lead evidence in support of his objections, that the eviction order dated 24th March, 1973 was obtained by the respondent fraudulenty and unlawfully in collusion with the appellant s counsel, that the respondent landlord being a trust is not a legal entity. Lastly he submits that the eviction order dated 24th March, 1973 was passed by Mr. V. S. Aggarwal as Additional Controller and the impugned order dated 16th May. 1980 was also paused by him acting as Rent Control Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand. submits that there was sufficient material before the Additional Controller for the passing of the order of eviction under Section 22 of the Act against the appellant that the executing court cannot go behind the eviction order, that there was neither any fraud nor collusion with the appellant s counsel in obtaining the order of eviction, that the respondent-landlord has been a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as such a legal entity to institute the eviction application. The facts leading upto the passing of the impugned order may now be stated.

( 2 ) THE appellant was a tenant in a portion of the ground floor of a house situate at Plot No. H-4, Model Town, Delhi. The property was purchased by the respondent on 23rd January, 1968. The appellant attorned to the respondent as a tenant. Other particulars or terms of tenancy are not necessary to be stated. On 19th October, 1972 the respondent filed a petition under Section 22 of the Act seeking eviction of the appellant. The ground of eviction pleaded in para 18 (a) of the application reads as under :

"18 (A) The petitioner is a public charitable Institution and is carrying on public charitable activities at Hardwar like charitable dispensary, Free Sanskrit Maha Vidayalaya, Free Public Library. Goshala and other like charitable activities since the year 1958. Now the trustees of petitioner in furtherance of its public charitable and religious activities want to start a public library, charitable dispensary and also a Satsang Bhavan in the said premises for the good of the general public. The building was purchased for the public charitable purposes". The appellant-tenant resisted the eviction application pleading that the eviction application was a counter-blast to the standard rent petition earlier filed by him, and that the petition under Section 22 of the Act was not maintainable. It was denied that the respondent was a public charitable institution within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act or it was carrying on public charitable activities . It was also denied that the respondent for the furtherance of its activities wanted to start a public library, charitable dispensary or a Satsang Bhavan in the premises and that there were about 13 tenants in occupation of the entire building, The respondent in its rejoinder denied that it was not a public charitable institution or was not carrying on public charitable ac