R.S. Sodhi, J.@mdashRC. S.A. 206 of 1988 is directed against order dated 17.9.1988 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (for short ''the Tribunal'') in R.C.A. No. 422, whereby the learned Tribunal, while adjudicating upon an order dated 17.9.1988 passed by the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the objections filed by the appellant, has concurred with the same thereby dismissing the appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the Tribunal, are -
That late Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhalla, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of non-payment and unauthorised constructions etc.
That in the said petition the ld. Trial court had declined to pass an order u/s 15(1) of the Delhi Rent control Act, but in appeal the learned Rent Control Tribunal passed the order u/s 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, directing the appellant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st September, 1972. The said order was duly complied with by the appellant.
That the case was ultimately decided by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, the then ld. Additional Rent controller whereby the ld. Court held that the order u/s 15(1) passed by the Rent Control Tribunal had been complied with but that the appellant was in arrears from 1st of September, 1970 and a composite order was passed on 7.1.1974 directing the appellant to deposit all arrears of rent from 1st September, 1970 to 31st August, 1972 within one month @ Rs. 400/- per month and if the rent was so deposited, the appellant would get benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act and in default order of eviction on the ground of non- payment shall be deemed to have been passed. The other ground pleaded by the landlord was negatived by the learned court. The said order dated 7.1.1974 was passed ex parte against the appellant.
That late Shri Jaswant Singh Bhalla and the appellant entered into a compromise which was reduced into writing on 10.1.1974 to the effect that the appellant would not file appeal against the order dated 7.1.1974 but he could pay the amount ordered by the court within two years. The said agreement was duly complied with by the appellant and in fact the landlord who was receiving rent from the appellant right up to 3rd November, 1985. It may be submitted that Shri Jaswant Singh Bhalla had died months after the said agreement dated 10.1.1974 which was arrived at between the parties and according to the respondents he died in September, 1974.
That the respondents filed execution application on about 23.12.1985 seeking execution of the order dated 7.1.1974 and notice of the execution application had been issued to the appellant. He filed objections to the learned lower court contending, inter alia, that the eviction order was illegal and was liable to be set aside and that the agreement had been arrived at between the parties and reduced into writing on 10.1.1974 whereby it has been agreed that the appellant would not file appeal against the said order dated 7.1.1974 and would pay the amount ordered to be paid within 2 years instead of one month as directed by the learned court.
That the said objections were contested by the respondents. The appellant examined himself and two other witnesses, who were the contesting witnesses of the agreement while out of the respondents, Shri Ashok Kumar, appeared as his own witness.
That the objections of the appellant have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.9.1988 and warrants of possession had been directed to issue.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a composite order of eviction u/s 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ''the Act'') passed by the Rent Controller is a nullity at law, as has been held by the High Court in
4. Counsel for the respondent contends that a composite decree by the Rent Controller cannot be termed as ''a nullity'' and that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. He commends the order under challenge.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have, with their assistance, gone through the record of the case. It appears to me that the law that has emerged over the period of time has been settled by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, a few of which are -
6. The settled principle is that the composite order passed by the Rent Controller u/s 14(1)(a) of the Act is not an order passed without inherent jurisdiction and, Therefore, is not per se a nullity at law. Consequently, the Executing Court has no right to look into the legality of or go behind the order passed by the Rent controller. The Judgment of the High Court, which strikes a contrary note, is out of tune.
7. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has prayed for time to vacate the premises in question. Counsel submits that since this is an old tenancy and the tenant is a senior citizen, he prays for three years'' time to vacate the premises. Counsel for the respondents submits that one year would be sufficient.
8. Taking into consideration the totality of the case and also taking into consideration the change of law over the period of time, I am of the opinion that two years'' time would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted two years'' time to vacate the premises in question. Counsel for the respondents has no objection to this, provided the petitioner gives an undertaking to this court to the effect that he shall vacate the premises on or before 27th February, 2008; shall not create any third party interest in the property in question; shall hand over the vacant possession of the property in question to the respondents and shall continue to pay the agreed rent and electricity/water charges, as applicable. It is ordered accordingly. The undertaking is directed to be filed in this court within two weeks from today. RC.S.A. 206 of 1988 is disposed of accordingly. In the event such an undertaking is not filed within the time granted, the matter shall stand dismissed.
