A compromise decree for eviction is not a nullity if there is sufficient material on record to satisfy the court about the existence of statutory grounds for eviction, even if the court's satisfaction is not expressly stated in the order.

Headnote:
DECREE FOR EVICTION - COMPROMISE DECREE - SATISFACTION OF COURT - MATERIAL ON RECORD - EXECUTION OF DECREE - VALIDITY OF DECREE - CONDITION FOR EVICTION - STATUS OF TENANT AS LICENSEE - PREMATURE EXECUTION PETITION - RAISING NEW GROUNDS IN SECOND APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, Turab Ali and Gulam Mohamed, filed an execution second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Pali, which upheld the dismissal of their appeal against the Civil Judge's order rejecting their objection petition in an execution proceeding. The appellants were ordered to vacate a shop occupied by them based on a compromise decree in a suit filed by the respondent, Smt. Mariyam, for eviction and recovery of rent arrears. The appellants contended that the decree was a nullity as the Civil Judge did not satisfy himself about the grounds for eviction under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.
Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed various Supreme Court precedents on the validity of compromise decrees in eviction suits. It held that a compromise decree can be a nullity if the court passing the decree did not satisfy itself about the existence of statutory grounds for eviction under the relevant Act. However, such satisfaction can be established from the order itself or other material on record, including pleadings, evidence, or admissions in the compromise agreement.
Issues: 1. Whether the decree for eviction passed on the basis of a compromise was a nullity due to the court's failure to satisfy itself about the grounds for eviction under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950? 2. Whether the condition in the decree allowing eviction for non-payment of rent for three months was illegal and void? 3. Whether the petition for execution of the decree filed in 1972 was premature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the decree was not a nullity as there was sufficient material on record, including the admission of the appellants in the compromise petition, to satisfy the court about the existence of the ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(h) of the Act. 2. The court held that the condition in the decree allowing eviction for non-payment of rent for three months was not illegal or void as it was a concession granted to the appellants and not a penal clause to secure rent payment. 3. The court held that the appellants could not raise the ground of prematurity of the execution petition in the second appeal as it was not raised in the objection petition and was barred by the decision in Chhaganraj v. Suganmal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that none of the contentions raised by the appellants had merit.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

A compromise decree for eviction is not automatically invalid solely because the court did not explicitly state its satisfaction regarding the grounds for eviction, provided there is sufficient material on record indicating such grounds (!) .
The validity of a compromise decree depends on whether there was material on record—such as pleadings, evidence, or admissions—that could have led the court to be satisfied about the statutory grounds for eviction (!) .
An admission by the tenant in a compromise petition that the premises are needed for personal use by the landlord or their family can serve as sufficient material for the court to be satisfied about the bona fide requirement, thus rendering the decree valid (!) .
Conditions in a decree permitting eviction for non-payment of rent for a specified period (e.g., three months) are permissible if they are concessions and not penal clauses, and such provisions do not invalidate the decree (!) .
A decree passed based on a compromise that explicitly or implicitly admits the landlord’s grounds for eviction, and where the court had the material to be satisfied about those grounds, is not a nullity and is executable (!) .
The question of whether a decree is null or void can be determined from the record itself; if the decree discloses sufficient material to show that the court could have been satisfied about the grounds for eviction, it is valid and enforceable (!) .
Raising new grounds or objections in a second appeal, which were not previously raised in the objection petition during execution proceedings, is generally barred and cannot be entertained (!) .
The status of the tenant as a licensee rather than a tenant, and the conditions stipulated in the decree, do not automatically render the decree invalid if it was based on sufficient record material and proper satisfaction of statutory grounds (!) .
The execution of a decree cannot be challenged on the grounds of prematurity if such a ground was not raised in the objection petition and is barred by precedent (!) .
Overall, the courts emphasize that the satisfaction of the court regarding statutory grounds for eviction can be inferred from the record, including admissions and pleadings, and that compromise decrees are valid if supported by such material (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or clarification on any specific aspect.

JUDGMENT

1. - This execution second appeal has been filed by the judgment-debtor, Turab Ali and Gulam Mohamed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd November, 1973 passed by the District Judge, Pali, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 26th April, 1973 passed by Civil Judge, Pali, in Execution Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1972 was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :

There is a shop situate in the town of Pali The appellants are in occupation of the said shop. The respondent, Smt. Mariyam, filed a suit (Civil Original Suit No. 6 of 1970) on 1st June, 1971 in the Court of Civil Judge, Pali for the eviction of the respondents from the said shop; and for the recovery of a sum of L 3,880/- on account of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. In the said suit, the plaintiff-respondent had claimed the eviction of the appellants on two grounds, viz., (1) default in the payment of rent and (2) bona fide personal need of the plaintiff-respondent. In the said suit, the appellants filed the written statement dated 16th July, 1970 contesting the said suit and issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Issue No. 4 related to the question whether the shop in dispute was required bona fide by the plaintiff for her husband to carry on business therein. During the pandency of the aforesaid suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and a compromise petition dated 28th May, 1971 signed by the appellants and the Mukhtar Aam of the respondent was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Pali. In the said compromise petition, the parties agreed that the appellants would vacate the shop and deliver the same to the respondent on 1st June, 1974 because the said shop was needed personally by the respondent for her husband. In the said compromise petition, it was further agreed that the appellants would pay a sum of L 135/- per month by way of damages for use and occupation of the shop from 1st June, 1971 and that if the rent (damages) for three months fell in arrear, the respondent decree-holder would be entitled to get the shop vacated immediately and also to recover the amount of arrears. In the compromise petition, it was also provided that the rent would either be deposited in the court or sent by money order to the respondent or paid to Shri Ibrahim, the husband and the Mukhtiar Aam of the respondent. In the compromise petition, it was further provided that all the objections raised by the appellants should be treated as withdrawn and that the respondent was foregoing the rent in respect of the period prior to 1st June, 1971. After the said compromise petition was filed, the said petition was read over to the parties in the presence of the Civil Judge and it was accepted as correct. Thereafter, the Civil Judge passed an order dated 28th May, 1971 stating that he considered it proper to pass a decree in terms of the compromise and he decreed the suit of the respondent for the eviction of the appellants in terms of the said compromise. It appears that after the passing of the said decree, the appellants committed default in the payment of rent (damages) payable under the decree and a petition for execution of the said decree was filed by the respondent in the court of Civil Judge, Pali. In the said execution proceedings, the appellants filed an objection petition raising the grounds that the decree was inexecutable as it was a nullity. In the said objection petition, the appellants submitted that before passing the decree for eviction, it was incumbent upon the court to have arrived at a satisfaction that the appellants could be evicted on one of the grounds set out in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and that on the date of the passing of the decree, there was no material on record before the Civil Judge on the basis of which the Civil Judge could have arrived at the satisf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1979 Supreme(Raj) 419

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTS.C.Agrawal, J.Turab Ali and another - AppellantVersusSmt. Mariam - RespondentS. B. Civil Execution Second Appeal No. 23 of 1973.Decided On : 18-10-1979

A compromise decree for eviction is not a nullity if there is sufficient material on record to satisfy the court about the existence of statutory grounds for eviction, even if the court's satisfaction is not expressly stated in the order.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Turab Ali and another - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Mariam - Respondent
S. B. Civil Execution Second Appeal No. 23 of 1973.
Decided On : 18-10-1979