( 1 ) RC. S. A. 206 of 1988 is directed against order dated 17. 9. 1988 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) in R. C. A. No. 422, whereby the learned Tribunal, while adjudicating upon an order dated 17. 9. 1988 passed by the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the objections filed by the appellant, has concurred with the same thereby dismissing the appeal.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as have been noted by the Tribunal, are -That late Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhalla, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of non-payment and unauthorised constructions etc. That in the said petition the ld. Trial court had declined to pass an order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent control Act, but in appeal the learned rent Control Tribunal passed the order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent control Act, directing the appellant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent w. e. f. 1st September, 1972. The said order was duly complied with by the appellant. That the case was ultimately decided by Shri V. S. Aggarwal, the then ld. Additional Rent controller whereby the ld. Court held that the order under section 15 (1) passed by the Rent Control Tribunal had been complied with but that the appellant was in arrears from 1st of September, 1970 and a composite order was passed on 7. 1. 1974 directing the appellant to deposit all arrears of rent from 1st September, 1970 to 31st August, 1972 within one month @ Rs. 400/- per month and if the rent was so deposited, the appellant would get benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act and in default order of eviction on the ground of non- payment shall be deemed to have been passed. The other ground pleaded by the landlord was negatived by the learned court. The said order dated 7. 1. 1974 was passed ex parte against the appellant. That late Shri Jaswant Singh Bhalla and the appellant entered into a compromise which was reduced into writing on 10. 1. 1974 to the effect that the appellant would not file appeal against the order dated 7. 1. 1974 but he could pay the amount ordered by the court within two years. The said agreement was duly complied with by the appellant and in fact the landlord who was receiving rent from the appellant right upto 3rd November, 1985. It may be submitted that Shri jaswant Singh Bhalla had died months after the said agreement dated 10. 1. 1974 which was arrived at between the parties and according to the respondents he died in September, 1974. That the respondents filed execution application on about 23. 12. 1985 seeking execution of the order dated 7. 1. 1974 and notice of the execution application had been issued to the appellant. He filed objections to the learned lower court contending, inter alia, that the eviction order was illegal and was liable to be set aside and that the agreement had been arrived at between the parties and reduced into writing on 10. 1. 1974 whereby it has been agreed that the appellant would not file appeal against the said order dated 7. 1. 1974 and would pay the amount ordered to be paid within 2 years instead of one month as directed by the learned court. That the said objections were contested by the respondents. The appellant examined himself and two other witnesses, who were the contesting witnesses of the agreement while out of the respondents, Shri Ashok Kumar, appeared as his own witness. That the objections of the appellant have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 17. 9. 1988 and warrants of possession had been directed to issue.

( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that a composite order of eviction under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ) passed by the Rent Controller is a nullity at law, as has been held by the high Court in B. R. Mehta vs. Smt. Atma Devi 37 (1989) DLT 416. Consequently, the decree could not be executed as the petitioner would have had no right to seek extension of tim