# BAHADUR SINGH & ANR v. MUNI SUBRAT DASS & ANR

- **Citation:** [1969] 2 S.C.R. 432
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bahadur-singh-anr-v-muni-subrat-dass-anr-4511
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Code of CiviJ Procedure (Act 5 of 1908) s. 41-Decree in
terms
of Arbitration Award passed-Objection to validity, if can be raised.
Indian Arbitration Act (10 of 1940) ss.
14,
17,
31,
32 end 33Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of 1952) s.
13-Decree contravening s. 13, if can be enforced.
The tenants occupying the ground floor of a building set up a workshop therein.
According to the landlord's son-M, who resided in the
first floor, the workshop was a nuisance an.d caused him great annoyance.
M and tenants agreed to refer the dispute. to arbitration. The landlord
was not a party to the agreement. The award directed that the tenants
would run workshop up to certain time
and the.reafter
remove
the
machinery, and on that day give vacant possession of the ground floor
to the landlord. The award was signed by the arbitrators, the tenants,
and M, and it was attested by the landlord. It was filed in Court under
s. 14 of thOi Arbitration Act. The tenants and M stated in Court that
they had no objections against the
award. The
Court
pronounced
judgment according to the award and decree followed.
On the expiry
of the date fixed for removing the: machinery and for vacating !he premises, M and the landlord jointly applied for the execution of the decree.
The tenants objected under s. 47, Code of Civil Procedure to the execution contending that (i)
the award was beyond the scope
of the
reference and was invalid and the decree based on the invalid award was
void; (ii) the decree was passed in contravention of the Delhi and .Ajmer
Rent Control Act, 1952 and was void; and (iii) the landlord could not
execute the decree.
HELD : (i) The award was filed in Court under s. 14 of the Arbitration Act and on notice to the tenants and in their presence a decree
was passed according to the award under s. 17. It was not open to
the tenants then to take the objection that !he award was in excess of
the authority on the arbitrators or was otherwise invalid. Having regard
to the scheme of ss. 14 to 17 and 31 to 33 all questions regard1ng the
validity of the award had to be determined by the Court in which the
award was filed and by no other Court. An award which is invalid on
any ground can be set aside under s. 30.
After a decree is oassed on
the award it is not open to the parties to the reference to
·raise any objection as to the validity of the award.
As between them
the decree conclusively determines that the award is valid. Nor can the
decree be pronounced to be a nullity on the grouncl that the award was
invalid. [435 B-Gl
Rabindra Deb Manna v. logendra Deb Manna A.LR. 1923 Cal. 410,
and Shib Kristo Daw v. Satish Chandra
Dut.t
(1912)
39 Cal.
822.
approved.
(ii) The decree for delivery of possession to the landlord was a
nullitv and could not be enforced in execution.
Section 13(1) of the
· Deihl and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 prohibited the Court,. from
passing a decree or order for recovery of possession of any premises in
A
'
B
..
c
D
E
F
•
G
•
H
A
•
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BAHADUR v. M. s. DASS (Bachawat, J.)
A33
favour of a landlord against a tenant except in such a suit or proceeding
instituted by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of possession
on one of the grounds stated therein, and unless the Court was satisfied
that a ground of eviction existed.
The decree in the present case was
on the face of it one for recovery of possession of the premises in favour
of a landlord against a tenant.
The Court passed the decree according to an award under s. 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in a proceeding to which the landlord was not a party without satisfying itself that a
ground of eviction existed. [436 C-E]
Peachey Propenty Corpn. vs.
Robinson
[1966]
2
All
E.R.981,
applied.
(iii) The1 decree in so far as it directed the removal of the machinery
from the premises was clearly valid and separabJe from the rest of the
decree and could be executed by M.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2464 and
2465 of 1966.
Appeal from the judgment

## Text

BAHADUR SINGH & ANR.
v.
MUNI SUBRAT DASS & ANR.
Octo~er 16, 1968
[S. M. SIKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.]
Code of CiviJ Procedure (Act 5 of 1908) s. 41-Decree in
terms
of Arbitration Award passed-Objection to validity, if can be raised.
Indian Arbitration Act (10 of 1940) ss.
14,
17,
31,
32 end 33Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of 1952) s.
13-Decree contravening s. 13, if can be enforced.
The tenants occupying the ground floor of a building set up a workshop therein.
According to the landlord's son-M, who resided in the
first floor, the workshop was a nuisance an.d caused him great annoyance.
M and tenants agreed to refer the dispute. to arbitration. The landlord
was not a party to the agreement. The award directed that the tenants
would run workshop up to certain time
and the.reafter
remove
the
machinery, and on that day give vacant possession of the ground floor
to the landlord. The award was signed by the arbitrators, the tenants,
and M, and it was attested by the landlord. It was filed in Court under
s. 14 of thOi Arbitration Act. The tenants and M stated in Court that
they had no objections against the
award. The
Court
pronounced
judgment according to the award and decree followed.
On the expiry
of the date fixed for removing the: machinery and for vacating !he premises, M and the landlord jointly applied for the execution of the decree.
The tenants objected under s. 47, Code of Civil Procedure to the execution contending that (i)
the award was beyond the scope
of the
reference and was invalid and the decree based on the invalid award was
void; (ii) the decree was passed in contravention of the Delhi and .Ajmer
Rent Control Act, 1952 and was void; and (iii) the landlord could not
execute the decree.
HELD : (i) The award was filed in Court under s. 14 of the Arbitration Act and on notice to the tenants and in their presence a decree
was passed according to the award under s. 17. It was not open to
the tenants then to take the objection that !he award was in excess of
the authority on the arbitrators or was otherwise invalid. Having regard
to the scheme of ss. 14 to 17 and 31 to 33 all questions regard1ng the
validity of the award had to be determined by the Court in which the
award was filed and by no other Court. An award which is invalid on
any ground can be set aside under s. 30.
After a decree is oassed on
the award it is not open to the parties to the reference to
·raise any objection as to the validity of the award.
As between them
the decree conclusively determines that the award is valid. Nor can the
decree be pronounced to be a nullity on the grouncl that the award was
invalid. [435 B-Gl
Rabindra Deb Manna v. logendra Deb Manna A.LR. 1923 Cal. 410,
and Shib Kristo Daw v. Satish Chandra
Dut.t
(1912)
39 Cal.
822.
approved.
(ii) The decree for delivery of possession to the landlord was a
nullitv and could not be enforced in execution.
Section 13(1) of the
· Deihl and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 prohibited the Court,. from
passing a decree or order for recovery of possession of any premises in
A
'
B
..
c
D
E
F
•
G
•
H
A
•
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BAHADUR v. M. s. DASS (Bachawat, J.)
A33
favour of a landlord against a tenant except in such a suit or proceeding
instituted by the landlord against the tenant for recovery of possession
on one of the grounds stated therein, and unless the Court was satisfied
that a ground of eviction existed.
The decree in the present case was
on the face of it one for recovery of possession of the premises in favour
of a landlord against a tenant.
The Court passed the decree according to an award under s. 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in a proceeding to which the landlord was not a party without satisfying itself that a
ground of eviction existed. [436 C-E]
Peachey Propenty Corpn. vs.
Robinson
[1966]
2
All
E.R.981,
applied.
(iii) The1 decree in so far as it directed the removal of the machinery
from the premises was clearly valid and separabJe from the rest of the
decree and could be executed by M.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2464 and
2465 of 1966.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 8, 1964 of
the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 75-D of 1962.
M. C. Chagla and Lily Thomas, for the appellants (in C.A.
No. 2464 of 1966) and the respondents (in C.A. Nos. 2465 of
1966).
A. K. Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the respondents
(in C.A.
No. 2464 of 1966) and the appellants (in C.A. No. 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. 279, situate in Dariba Kalan, Delhi.
His
son Muni Subrat Dass resides on the first floor while the ground
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.
He made a number of complaints to the Municipal Committee
for stoppage of the nuisance.
On June 10, 1954, Muni Subrat
and the tenants agreed in writing to refer the disputes between
them to the arbitration of two named arbitrators.
The landlord was not a party to the agreement. The arbitrators made
their award on July 14, 1954. The award directed that (i) Muni
Subrat would withdraw the applications
pending
before
the
Municipal Committee; (ii) the tenants would be at liberty to run
the workshop during the day time upio 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
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1969] 2 S.C.R.
to landlord for the period of their occupation.
The award was
signed by the arbitrators and the parties to the reference and was
attested by the landlord. It was filed in Court under s. 14 of
the Arbitration Act, 1940. On August 26, 1954, the tenants and
Muni Subrat stated in Court that they had no objections against
the award.
On the same date the Court pronounced judgment
according to the award and a decree followed accordingly.
On
August 23, 1958 Muni Subrat and the landlord jointly appliied
for execution of the decree for delivery of possession of the premises.
In anticipation of the application for execution of
the
decree, on January 9, 1958 the tenants filed an application under
sec. 4 7 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 : ( i) the award was beyond
the scope of the reference and was invalid and the decree based
on the invalid award was void; (ii) the decree was passed in
contravention of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952
(Act No. 38 of 1952) and was void; and (iii) the landlord could
not execute the decree.
'
The Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, dismissed the objection.
He held that (i) that the objection that the award was
without jurisdiction could not be raised under sec. 4 7; (ii)
the
decree was not in contravention of the Rent Act; and (iii)
the
lantllord was entitled to execute the decree. On appeal, the
Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, held that (i) the question
as to the validity of the award could not be agitated in the execution proceedings; (ii) the decree for eviction was
passed in
contravention 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 could not execute
the decree for eviction.
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 could
get the machinery removed but he could not claim eviction. The
tenants and the decree-holders filed two separate appeals in the
Punjab High Court at Delhi. Gurdev Singh J. held that (i) the
first appeal filed against the order in favour of the landlord was
competent; (ii) the decree for eviction did not contravene the
provisions of the Rent Act and (iii) the landlord was entitled
to execute the decree for eviction. In the result, he accepted the
decree-holder's appeal and dismissed the tenant's
appeal.. The
tenants filed an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
A
Divisional Bench of the High Court held that (1) the objection
to the validitv of the award could not be entertoined in the execution oroceedinqs; (2) the decree directin!!; delivery of possession of -the premises to the landlord was passed in contravention
of the·Rent Act; (3) neither the landlord nor Muni Subrat could
A
•
B
c
D
E
t--
•
F
G
•
H
A
•
•
B
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
BAHADUR V, M. s. DASS (Bachawat, J.)
435
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.
In the result, the Divisional Bench
allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Additional
Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi.
In passing this order the Bench overlooked that the Senior-Sub-Judge had dismissed the appeal against
the landlord as incompetent.
Having regard to the fact that the
appeal against the landlord was competent, the Bench
should
have also set aside the order favouring the landlord. The present
appeals have been filed by the tenants as also by the landlord and
Muni Subrat after obtaining certificates from the High Court.
The following points arise for determination in these appeals.
( 1) Can the objection as to the validity of the award be raised
after a decree is passed on the award, and can the decree be
pronounced to be a nullity on the ground that it was based on an
invalid award; (2) Is the decree directing the tenants to deliver
possession of the premises to the landlord a nullity on the ground
that 'it was passed in contravention of the Rent Act; ( 3) Is this
portion of the decree enforceable either by the landlord or by
Muni Subrat; and ( 4) Is the decree so far as it directs removal
of the machinery valid and enforceable by Muni Subrat. ·
The award was filed in Court under s. 14 of the Arbitration
Act and on notice to the tenants and in their presence a decree
was passed according to the award under s. 17. It is not open
to the tenants now to take the objection that the award was in
excess of the authority of the arbitrators or was otherwise invalid.
Having regard to the scheme of ss. 14 to 17 and 31to33 all questions regarding the validity of the award had to be determined
by the Court in which the award was filed and by no other Court.
An award which is invalid on any ground can be set aside under
s. 30.
After a decree is passed on the award it is ·not open to the
parties to the reference to raise any objection as to the validity
of the award.
As between them the decree conclusively determines that the award is valid.
Nor can the decree be pronounced
to be a nullity on the ground that the award was invalid.
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. loRendra Deb
Manna(') where Rankin, J. observed: "An award made out of
time, or otherwise invalid. is no longer a nullity : it is liable to
be set aside by the Court. but, if not set aside. a decree made for
its enforcement is not without jurisdiction, Shih Kristo Daw v.
Satish Chandra Dutt (1912) 39 Cal. 822."
The next question is whether the decree directing the tenant
to deliver possession of the premises to the landlord was passed
(!) A.I.R. 1923 (',al. 410, 413.
436
SUPREM.E COURT REPORTS
[1969] 2 S.C.R.
in contravention of s. 13'(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent ContA
rol Act, 1952. That sub-section provided that : "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any
contract, no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any
premises shall be passed by any Court in favour of the landlord
against any tenant (including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated) : . Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to
B
any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if
the Court is satisfied ... " Then followed a catalogue of grounds
on which the decree for recovery of possession could be passed.
The other sub-sections to s. 13 showed that a decree or order
could be passed on one of those grounds in a suit or proceeding
instituted by a landlord against a tenant. Section 13 ( 1) prohibited
('
the Court from passing a decree or order for recovery of possession of any premises in favour of a landlord against a tenant except in such a suit or proceeding and unless the Court was satisfied that a ground of eviction existed.
Now the decree ~n: the
present case is on the face of it one for recovery of possession of
the premises in favour of a landlord against a tenant. The Court
passed the decree according to an award under s. 17 of the ArbiD
· tration Act, 1940 in a proceeding to which the landlord was not
a party without satisfying itself that a ground of eviction existed.
On the plain wording of s. 13 (I) the Court was forbidden to
pass. the decree.
The decree is a nullity and cannot be enforced
in execution.
The conclusion that a decree passed in contravention of s. 13
(1) is a nullity is supported by the decision in Peachey Property
Corpn. v. Robinson('). In that case the landlords issued a writ
to recover possession of a flat let to tenants who resided there for
non-payment of rent. No appearance was entered and judgment
was signed in default of appearance.
On an application for
leave to issue a writ for possession, the Court held that the judgment was a nullity as it was given without any determination that
it was reasonable to do so in contravention of s. 3 ( 1) of the Rent
and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933. As
the decree was a nullity. the Court refused fo issue a writ for possession. Winn, L.J. said :-
"Accordingly, the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, s. 3(1) was made
to apply to these premises and that sub-section provided :
'No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of anv dwelling house to which the principal Acts
apply or for the ejection of a tenant therefrom shall be
(!) [1966] 2 All E.R. 981, 983.
E
F
G
H
•
•
..
•
•
•
•
llAliADUR v. M. s. DASS (Bachawat, J.)
4 37
A
made or given unless the Court considers it reasonable
to make such an order or give such a judgment. .
and . .. "
B
c
D
E
One or other of two additional conditions is satisfied. It is
perfectly plain from what I have said that before the judgment in
default of appearance was entered no court had determined
whether it was reasonable to make such an order or give such a
judgment. In my view, therefore, by express force of that section
the judgment in default of appearance here was a nullity. It was,
according to its terms, a judgment for recovery of possession of
these premises, and that is something which the section prohibits
unless there has been a prior determination by the court that it
was reasonable to give such a judgment."
As the decree for the delivery of possession of the premises
to the landlord is a nullity it cannot be enforced or executed either
by the landlord or by the landlord's son Muni Subrat. The
decree in so far as it directs the removal of the machinery from
the premises is clearly valid and separable from the rest of the
decree and may be executed by Muni Subrat.
In the result, it is declared that (a) the objections as to the
validity of the award cannot be entertained in the execution proceedings; (b) the decree in so far as it directs delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord is a nullity and cannot be
execute~ either by ~uni. Subrat or by Mehtab Sing)l and ( c) the
decree m so far as 1t dITects removal of the machinery is valid
and may be executed by Muni Subrat. Subrat to the declarations
mentioned above the appeals are dismissed.
There will be no
order as to the costs in this Court.
Y.P.
Appeal~ dismissed.