Rent control compromise decrees for eviction are void unless statutory grounds for eviction were judicially found

Under a rent control statute that permits eviction only on specified grounds, a compromise decree for possession is invalid unless the court has judicially satisfied itself that a statutory ground exists. A private compromise cannot override the statutory prohibition or confer jurisdiction to order eviction contrary to Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. A challenge under Section 47 CPC can succeed where the decree lacks legal foundation under the rent control law, and such a decree is treated as a nullity and not executable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decree for eviction passed on compromise, without the court recording satisfaction that a statutory ground for eviction existed under the rent control law, was a nullity and therefore could not be executed.

Analysis: The appeal was controlled by the earlier decision holding that, under Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, the court could not pass an eviction decree unless the statutory ground existed and was judicially satisfied. A compromise between the parties could not by itself authorise a decree for possession in contravention of the statutory prohibition. The challenge under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 therefore succeeded in principle only if the decree was without legal foundation under the rent control statute.

Conclusion: The decree was a nullity insofar as it directed eviction without compliance with Section 13(1) of the Act, and the challenge failed to sustain the decree.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rent control statute forbids eviction except on specified grounds, a compromise decree for possession passed without judicial satisfaction of such grounds is a nullity and is not executable.

---