38 of 1952 and was void and iii the landlord companyld number execute the decree.
In the result, the DiviSional Bench allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi.
held that i the first appeal filed against the order in favour of the landlord was companypetent ii the decree for eviction did number companytravene the provisions of the Rent Act and iii the landlord was entitled.
The award was signed by the arbitrators and the parties to the reference and was attested by the landlord.
A Divisional Bench of the High Court held that 1 the objection to the validity of the award companyld number be entertained in the execution proceedings 2 the decree directing delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord was passed in companytravention of the Rent Act 3 neither the landlord number Muni Subrat companyld enforce that part of the decree 4 the decree directing removal of the machinery was separable and was void and Muni Subrat was entitled to execute it.
The tenants and the decree holders filed two separate appeals in the Punjab High Court at Delhi.
47 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising the following objections to the execution of the decree as to the delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord the award was beyond the scope of the reference and was invalid and the decree based on the invalid award was void the decree was passed in companytravention of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 Act No.
The award was filed in Court under s. 14 of the Arbitration Act and on numberice to the tenants and in their presence a decree, was passed according to the award under s. 17.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 8, 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The present appeals have been filed by the tenants as also by the landlord and Muni Subrat after obtaining certificates from the High Court.
Nor can the decree be pronounced to be a nullity on the ground that the award was invalid.
On the same date the Court pronounced judgment according to the award and a decree followed accordingly.
47 ii the decree was number in companytravention of the Rent Act and iii the landlord was entitled to execute the decree.
In the result, he accepted the decree holders appeal and dismissed the tenants appeal.
to execute the decree for eviction.
It was filed in COurt under s. 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
In the result, he dismissed the appeal in part so far as it was directed against the landlord, allowed the appeal in part against Muni Subrat and declared that he companyld get the machinery removed but he companyld number claim eviction.
On appeal,the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, held that i the question as to the validity of the award companyld number be agitated in the execution proceedings the decree for eviction was passed in companytravention .of the Rent Act and was void iii the appeal against the order allowing the landlord to execute the decree was incompetent and iv Muni Subrat was entitled to execute the decree for removal of the machinery but he companyld number execute the decree for eviction.
Gurdev Singh 1.
In anticipation of the application for execution of the decree, on January 9, 1958 the tenants filed an application under sec.
The arbitrators made their award on July 14, 1954.
75 D of 1962.
On August 26, 1954, the tenants and Muni Subrat stated in Court that they had numberobjections against the award.
The award directed that Muni Subrat would withdraw the applications pending before.
On August 23, 1958 Muni Subrat and the landlord jointly applied for execution of the decree for delivery of possession of the premises.
The Municipal Committee ii the tenants would be at liberty to run the workshop during the day time upto December 31, 1957 iii on January 1, 1958, the tenants would remove the machinery iv on the same date they would give vacant possession of the ground floor to the landlord and v the tenants would pay rent to landlord for the period of their occupation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil.
The Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, dismissed the objection.
It is number Open to the tenants number to take the objection that the award was in excess of the authority of the arbitrators or was otherwise invalid.
Appeals Nos.
2464 and 2465 of 1966.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. One Mehtab Singh, the landlord, is the owner of the premises No.
He made a number of companyplaints to the Municipal Committee for stoppage of the nuisance.
He held that i that the objection that the award was without jurisdiction companyld number be raised under sec.
A decree passed on an invalid award in arbitrations in suits under the second schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stood on the same footing, see Rabindra Deb Manna v. Jogendra Deb Manna 1 where Rankin, 1.
K. Sen and 1.
C. Chagla and Lily Thomas, for the appellants in A. No.
279, situate in Dariba Kalan, Delhi.
The tenants filed an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
2464 of 1966 and the respondents in C.A. Nos.
N. Shroff, for the respondents in A. E No.
2464 of 1966 and the appellants in C.A. No.
The landlord was number a party to the agreement.
On June 10, 1954, Muni Subrat G and the tenants agreed in writing to refer the disputes between them to the arbitration of two named arbitrators.
His son Muni Subrat Dass resides on the first floor while the ground F floor is in the occupation of the tenants, Bahadur Singh and Daryao Singh where they set up a workshop and installed machinery for manufacturing purposes.
According to Muni Subrat the workshop was a nuisance and caused him great annoyance.
2465 of 1966 .
2465 of 1966 .
