Compromise eviction decree void without statutory satisfaction, and prior objections did not bar later challenge by res judicata.

A compromise decree for eviction under a rent-control statute is void and inexecutable if the court did not record satisfaction that the statutory grounds for eviction existed. A decree passed merely on compromise cannot bypass the mandatory judicial finding required by section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. Earlier orders on the same objection did not operate as res judicata because they had not finally determined the statutory bar. On the transferees' execution objection, the concurrent finding that the property was sold in specific half shares was left undisturbed, and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a compromise decree for eviction passed without recording satisfaction on the statutory grounds under section 13 was a nullity and inexecutable. (ii) Whether earlier orders on the same objection operated as res judicata. (iii) Whether the transferees could execute the decree in respect of the specific shares purchased by them and whether the concurrent finding on that aspect warranted interference.

Issue (i): Whether a compromise decree for eviction passed without recording satisfaction on the statutory grounds under section 13 was a nullity and inexecutable.

Analysis: Section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act barred a decree for recovery of possession unless the Court was satisfied that the statutory grounds for eviction existed. A decree passed merely on compromise, without such judicial satisfaction, could not satisfy the statutory mandate. The decree in question was recorded as a compromise decree, and nothing in it showed application of mind to the grounds required by the Act.

Conclusion: The compromise decree was a nullity and could not be executed.

Issue (ii): Whether earlier orders on the same objection operated as res judicata.

Analysis: Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code embodies the rule of res judicata, but a pure question of law unrelated to the facts giving rise to the right in dispute does not necessarily bar reconsideration in a later proceeding. The prior orders had not finally determined the legal effect of a decree prohibited by statute in the manner required to preclude the present challenge.

Conclusion: The earlier orders did not bar the challenge by res judicata.

Issue (iii): Whether the transferees could execute the decree in respect of the specific shares purchased by them and whether the concurrent finding on that aspect warranted interference.

Analysis: The contention relating to joint execution by all transferees was not pressed below and was not allowed to be revived. On the remaining factual aspect, the courts below had recorded a concurrent finding that the property had been sold in specific half shares, and no legal infirmity was shown to disturb that finding.

Conclusion: No interference was called for on the transferee and specific-share execution aspect.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the orders below were set aside, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where eviction under a rent-control statute can be decreed only after the Court records satisfaction of the statutory grounds, a compromise decree lacking such satisfaction is void and executable challenge to it is not barred by res judicata if the earlier rulings did not finally determine that statutory bar.

---