Jurisdictional satisfaction under rent control law cannot rest on counsel's statement alone; no binding compromise arose from time to vacate.

A jurisdictional satisfaction under Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act had to rest on material on record showing the landlord's institutional status and bona fide requirement for its activities. A counsel's statement across the Bar could not, in the circumstances, be treated as a binding admission of the tenant; without it, no material supported the statutory satisfaction, so the eviction order was without jurisdiction. A compromise also required consensus between the parties, and a unilateral request for time to vacate did not amount to a binding settlement. The challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a statement made by counsel across the Bar could be treated as an admission binding the tenant so as to support eviction under Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (ii) Whether the grant of time to vacate the premises amounted to a compromise sustaining the eviction order.

Issue (i): Whether a statement made by counsel across the Bar could be treated as an admission binding the tenant so as to support eviction under Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Analysis: The satisfaction required under Clause (d) of Section 22 depended on the existence of jurisdictional facts, namely that the landlord was an institution within the meaning of the provision and that the premises were required bona fide for furtherance of its activities. Such satisfaction had to rest on material on record. Although an admission may constitute relevant material, the statement of counsel in the circumstances could not be treated as an admission of the party binding the tenant. In the absence of that statement, no material remained to support the statutory satisfaction.

Conclusion: The eviction order was without jurisdiction and could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the grant of time to vacate the premises amounted to a compromise sustaining the eviction order.

Analysis: A compromise, like a contract, requires consensus between the parties. A unilateral statement by counsel conceding the grounds of eviction and seeking time to vacate did not amount to a compromise. The mere grant of time for vacating the premises did not convert the statement into a binding settlement.

Conclusion: No compromise arose from the grant of time to vacate.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the eviction order failed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional satisfaction under the rent control law must rest on legally admissible material, and a counsel's statement cannot, without more, be treated as a binding admission or as a compromise in the absence of consensus between the parties.

---