Implicit satisfaction on bona fide requirement sustains a compromise eviction order and defeats a nullity challenge.

An eviction order based on a compromise in rent control proceedings is not a nullity where the statutory ground of bona fide requirement can be gathered from the record. The landlord had pleaded personal occupation, supported the claim with oral and documentary evidence, and the tenant did not cross-examine before withdrawing the defence and submitting unconditionally to eviction. On those facts, the Court treated statutory satisfaction as implicit in the proceedings and the tenant's admission, and held that an express finding in the operative order was not essential. Earlier cases invalidating compromise decrees were distinguished because no material there showed that the statutory ground had been admitted or considered.

---

---

Issues: Whether an eviction order passed on a compromise in rent control proceedings was a nullity and inexecutable for want of an express finding that the landlord's requirement was bona fide.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the Controller to be satisfied that the landlord's claim for possession on a recognised ground was bona fide. The record showed that the landlord had pleaded bona fide personal occupation, led oral and documentary evidence in support, and the tenant had not cross-examined him. After that stage, the tenant withdrew his defence and unconditionally submitted to eviction. On those facts, the Court held that satisfaction on the statutory ground could be gathered from the proceedings and the tenant's implied admission, and need not appear only in an express judicial finding in the operative order. The prior decisions holding compromise decrees void were distinguished because, in those cases, there was no material showing that the statutory ground had been admitted or considered.

Conclusion: The eviction order was not a nullity and was executable; the tenant's objections failed.

---