13. However the reason which has prevailed with the other High Courts for holding the appeal to be maintainable i.e. of the Family Court passing a decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent not merely on the basis of consent of the parties but also on the basis of its satisfaction, we state with all due respect, does not satisfy us. We say so because the same requirement is to be found in Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC also as aforesaid and qua which the law, as discussed hereinbelow, is clear, that no appeal lies against a consent decree. We are therefore unable to hold a decree for divorce by mutual consent of a Family Court to be standing on any different footing then a consent decree of a Civil Court under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. We may in this context mention that the Rent Acts of various States also do not permit the Rent Controller to pass an order of eviction without satisfying itself, of a ground for eviction as provided under the Act being made out. However, under the said Acts also, it has been held that if from the order of eviction, though with consent, it is obvious that the Controller has satisfied himself/herself of a ground of eviction being made out, even if on the basis of admission of the tenant, such consensual order of eviction cannot be challenged. Reference in this regard may be made to K.K. Chari Vs. R.M.Seshadri (1973) 1 SCC 761, Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram (1974) 1 SCC 242, Roshan Lal Vs. Madanlal (1975) 2 SCC 785, Nai Bahu Vs. Lala Ramnarayan (1978) 1 SCC 58 and, Shivshankar Gurgar Vs. Dilip (2014) 2 SCC 465. It was held (i) an order of eviction based on consent of the parties is not necessarily void if the jurisdictional fact viz. a ground of eviction provided under the Act is shown to have existed when the Controller made the order; (ii) satisfaction of the Controller, which no
