Consent eviction decree under rent control law stands where compromise admits a statutory ground, barring execution challenge.

A consent decree for eviction under the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 is not a nullity merely because it is based on compromise; the rent court must still have material before it from which it can be prima facie satisfied that a statutory ground for eviction exists. A decree cannot rest on a ground outside the Act, and parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent, but clear admissions in the compromise or evidence already on record may supply the required foundation. Once that jurisdictional basis appears, the executing court cannot go behind the decree or reappraise the merits. The decree was therefore held executable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a consent decree for eviction passed under the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 is a nullity and inexecutable unless the court records an express judicial finding on the statutory grounds for eviction, or whether the decree is valid where the compromise itself contains material admissions showing a statutory ground.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, like other rent control enactments, restricts eviction to the grounds authorised by the Act and confers exclusive jurisdiction on the rent court. A decree for possession cannot be founded on a ground dehors the Act, and parties cannot by consent confer jurisdiction where the statute withholds it. At the same time, a consent decree is not void merely because it records a compromise: if, when the decree is made, there is material before the court from which it could be prima facie satisfied that a statutory ground exists, the decree is valid. Such material may consist of evidence already on record or clear admissions in the compromise itself. Admissions made in pleadings or in a compromise are binding and may waive proof of the admitted facts. In execution, the court may examine whether the decree itself, or the record of the trial court, discloses such material, but it cannot reappraise the merits once that jurisdictional foundation is found.

Conclusion: The decree was not a nullity. The compromise contained admissions sufficient to furnish a statutory basis for eviction, and the executing court was not entitled to go behind the decree. The objection to executability failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A consent decree for eviction under a rent control statute is valid if, at the time it is passed, the court has before it material, including clear admissions in the compromise, from which it could be prima facie satisfied that a statutory ground for eviction exists; the executing court cannot go behind such a decree once that jurisdictional foundation appears.

---