An eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is final and cannot be challenged in a civil court unless the order is a nullity or the fraud is extrinsic or collateral to the matter adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller.

SHAMSHER BAHADUR, J. :- This petition for revision raising the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit to challenge the order of eviction passed in pursuance of an agreement of the parties has been referred for decision by Gurdev Singh, J. to a larger Bench.

2. The facts which give rise to the petition are not in dispute and may briefly be narrated. The petitioner Shrimati Savitri Ahuja acquired plot described as 29-A in Friends Colony and a house was constructed on it in the year 1958 while she was in England. The building was leased to respondent Harbans Singh Mehta on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. The lease was for two years commencing from 1st of June, 1958. Col. Ahuja, the husband of the petitioner, having returned to India in 1960 on retirement from service, the petitioner applied for ejectment of the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Kent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter also called the Act) according to which the Controller may make an order for the recovery of the premises on the ground :

"that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the Landlord for occupation.... and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation."

3. In the prescribed form, the premises from which ejectment was sought were described under the fourth column as "residential". In column 12 of the form, it was said that the building had been completed in the month of May, 1958, and the tenant had shifted to the house in the first week of that month; the rent, however, accrued from 1st of June, 1950. The ground for ejectment, described in column 18 of the application were two. In the first place, it was stated that both the petitioner and her husband had returned from England on the retirement of Col. Ahuja. Neither the petitioner nor her husband had any other accommodation in Delhi or New Delhi for their own residence and they required the premises bona fide "for their own residence". Secondly it was stated that the respondent had not paid a substantial portion of the rent, a sum of Rs. 2,312/- only having been paid since the inception of the tenancy. The accommodation which was given on lease is detailed in column 8 of the petition and is stated to consist of three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, drawing-cum-dining room, study room, reception hall, two stores, kitchen-cum-pantry, one garage and two servants quarters with lawn."

4. The petition for ejectment which was filed in the first instance on 18th of July, 1960, was later amended by the order of the Court passed on 10th of November, 1960. The case was fixed for 20th of December, 1960, for evidence of the parties. Before the evidence could be recorded the parties compromised the dispute and the respondent tenant made the following statement on 14th of December, 1960 :

"I admit the petition of the petitioner and an order for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal need be passed against me. I will vacate the premises in dispute by 31st of December, 1961. I admit liability for payment of rent upto 31st of December, I960, at the figure of Rs. 9,733/- after taking adjustment all repairs etc., done by me upto date. Two cheques of Rs. 800/- were given to the attorney of the petitioner. She has assured me that these have not been encashed. The figure of Rs. 9,733/- has been arrived on this assumption. I will continue to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 800/-per month in future and will not be entitled to spend any amount on repairs etc........".

Mrs. Piki Bidi, who appeared as an attorney of the petitioner, stated :

"I have heard the statement of the respondent. I agree."

The order was passed by the Rent Controller the same day and the relevant passages may be reproduced :

"An application for the eviction of the tenant has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that she bona fide requires the premises in dispute for her residence and for the residence of her husband. The eviction of the tenant w