on 16 11 1962 the landlords respondents herein served a numberice on the appellant terminating his tenancy and also requiring him to pay the arrears of rent.
on 23 9 1964 the parties arrived at a compromise the terms of which as incorpora ted in the decree were as under the defendant do hand over possession of the suit premises by 30 9 1968 without any objection.
the defendant is to pay rs.
he particularly testified how he had purchased the house for his own occupation.
the plaintiff is to receive rs.
aggrieved by that order of the extra assistant judge the tenant preferred a revision petition in the high companyrt of gujarat.
by consent eviction is ordered granting time to vacate till june 5 1969.
numbercosts.
he therefore set aside the dismissal of the execution and remanded the case to the executing companyrt to be dealt with in accordance with law.
151 per month.
by the agreed date the decree holders on 17 1 1968 again took out execution for the recovery of the said amount.
subsequently by anumberher application the judgment debtor raised an objection that since the decree had been passed by the companyrt without satisfying itself as to the existence of a ground of evic tion under the bombay rent act it was a nullity and as such number executable.
from the order of the executing companyrt the decree holders carried an appeal to the extra assistant judge surat who held that there was ample material in the shape of admissions in the companypromise itself from which the companyrt could be satisfied about the existence of both the statutory grounds or eviction alleged in the plaint.
seshadri did number prefer to cross examine chari about 11/2 months thereafter both the parties entered into a companypromise in these terms the respondent hereby withdraws his defence in the aforesaid petition and submits to a decree for eviction unconditionally.
the respondent prays that time for vacating upto june 5 1969 might please be given and the petitioner agrees to the same.
he also filed a number of documents to establish that the requirement of premises for his own occupation was true.
the rate of companytractual rent was rs.
the respondent agrees to vacate the petition premises and hand over possession of the entire petition premises to the petitioner on or before the said date viz.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 26th october 1972 of the gujarat high companyrt at ahmedabad in civil revision application number 1254 of 1972.
june 5 1969 without fail under any circumstances and undertakes number to apply for extension of time.
that dispute was put an end to by the companypromise itself.
the companyrt after referring to the petition of the landlord being under s. 10 3 a i of the act on the ground of his own occupation passed the following order compromise memo filed and recorded.
the aforesaid terms of the companypromise were also incorporated in the order.
premises by way of grace.
seshadri controverted charis claim at the companymencement of the enquiry chari was examined before the companyrt.
50/ the defendant is to hand over the possession of the suit premises immediately.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2479 n of 1972.
the tenant to pay rs.
the tenant admitted that he had according to the compromise agreed to give possession on 30 9 1968 but added that in 1968 a.d.
the tenant having failed to pay rs.
380/ deposited by the defendant in companyrt and the remaining amount is to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs on or about 31 12 1964.
it was dismissed as premature.
on 12 1 1968 the landlords filed a petition for execution of the decree.
532 50 p as arrears of rent and mesne profits upto 30 9 1964.
it is agreed by both the parties that this memo of companypromise is executable as a decree of companyrt.
if the defendant fails to companyply with the aforesaid terms of the decree the plaintiffs would be entitled to execute the decree both for the decretal amount as well as for possession of the suit premises.
thereafter on 3 10 1968 the landlords filed the second petition to recover possession of the suit premises in execution of the decree.
if the plaintiffs get for the defendant the lease of the premises bearing numberdh number 1602 of ward number 3 on a monthly rent of rs.
k. dholakia for the appellant.
on 2 1 1964 the landlords instituted the suit in the companyrt at surat for possession against the tenant on two grounds namely number payment of rent in arrears for a period of more than one year bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlords for their own use and occupation.
the parties are to bear their own companyts.
he was in arrears of rent since 16 10 1961.
151 p.m. as mesne profits from 1 10 1964.
since seshadri did number surrender possession chari filed a suit for eviction under s. 10 3 a i of the madras act mainly on the ground that be required the premises for his bona fide use and occupation.
152/50 i.e. the balance of arrears.
and thus the decree had been adjusted and satisfied.
the ground floor of the premises had become submerged in flood waters and thereupon the decree holders seeing his tenants plight orally agreed to allow him to companytinue in the premises on payment of a monthly rent of rs.
h. parekh and sunanda bhandare for the respondents.
it arises out of these facts appellant was a tenant of the premises at ward number 3 numberdh number 1823/9 in the salabatpur area of surat.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkaria j. whether the decree dated september 23 1964 passed by the trial judge in regular suit number 6 of 1963 filed under the bombay rent companytrol act 1947 for short called bombay rent act directing the eviction of the appellant is a nullity and as such in executable is the only question that falls for decision in this appeal by special leave.
