JANARDHAN SRIVASTAVA Vs. DARYAO PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This case is an illustration of the law that the executing court may refuse to execute a decree only if the lack of jurisdiction of the court passing the decree or order is not only apparent on the face of the record but is also one of inherent jurisdiction, that is to say, jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

(2.) . In an eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord against the appellant/tenant an order under section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) was passed by the Additional Controller on 23-8-1973. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 17-10-1973. In S.A.O. 286 of 1973 against the order of the Tribunal the appellant/ tenant made a statement admitting the claim of the respondent/landlord that the latter bona fide required the premises in question for his own residence and prayed that an order for eviction be passed against him but that he should be allowed time up to 30-4-1975 to vacate the premises. The landlord agreed to the said request. Sachar, J. of this Court thereupon passed an order of eviction against the appellant giving him time to vacate till 30-4-1975. The appellant, however, did not vacate the premises and the landlord had to start execution proceedings against him. The tenant objected to- the execution on the ground that the order of Sachar, J. was without jurisdiction inasmuch as his Lordship was hearing only an appeal against an order passed under section 15(7) of the Act. The main eviction case was still pending before the Additional Controller. Sachar, J., therefore, could not pass an order for eviction disposing of the whole case which was pending before the Additional Controller and was not the subject matter of the appeal in the High Court. He relied on the decision of this Court in Ram Babu etc. v. Jaswant Singh (1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter 397) (1) in support of this objection.

(3.) . The Additional Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal negatived this objection. Hence this Second Appeal on a substantial question of law.