The amount, in deposit with this Court be paid to the plaintiff which will be adjusted between the On July 6, 1956, the companynsel for the parties and the plaintiff made a statement on solemn affirmation to the same effect, and on the same day the Court recorded the following order In view of the statement of the parties companynsel and the written companypromise, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.
40/ per mensem, instead of Rs.
He gave three grounds for ejectment in the plaint 1 that the premises were required bona fide by the plaintiff for occupation as residence for himself and other members of the family, and that he had numberother, suitable accommodation to meet his bona fide residential requirements 2 that the defendant already owned a house in Delhi which was suitable for him and 3 that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 7, 1962 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Revision Application No.
Appropriate issues were framed on April 4, 1956.
On the other hand, he presented an application on February 16, 1959, under s. 47, C.P.C., challenging the validity of the decree alleging that the same had been passed in companytravention of the provisions of s. 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 XXXVIII of 1952 , hereinafter referred to as the Act and hence the decree was a nullity.
The standard rent of the premises be fixed at Rs.
53 of 1956 in the Court of Subject 1st Class, Delhi, for the eviction of his tenant, K.L. Bansal, hereinafter referred to as the defendant.
He failed 1050 before the Sub Judge, and alsoon appeal before the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The decree was drawn up accordingly.
140 D of 1961.
98 of 1966.
The defendant, however, did number vacate the premises on December 31, 1958.
Sinha, G. Bhimsena Rao and M. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi is governed by the decision of this Court in Bahadur Singh v. Munl Subrat Dass 1 .
One Raghunath Sharma, predecessor m interest of the appellants hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff instituted on February 7, 1956, suit No.
Khowaja, for the appellants.
1 1969 2 S,C.R. 1041 The facts out of which the present appeal arises are these.
50/ paid at present payable from the 1st July, 1956, till the defendant vacates the premises.
On June 5, 1956, an application was filed by the plaintiff and the defendant that a companypromise had been effected on the following terms Decree for ejectment be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, the decree will be executable after the 31st December, 1958, if the defendant does number give possession till then.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The defendant flied a written statement denying these allegaltions.
