<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1970 (8) TMI 104 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465022</link>
    <description>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&#039; execution objection, the concurrent finding that the property was sold in specific half shares was left undisturbed, and no interference was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 11:59:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (8) TMI 104 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465022</link>
      <description>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&#039; execution objection, the concurrent finding that the property was sold in specific half shares was left undisturbed, and no interference was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>