B.R. Gavai, J.

1. The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.176/2011 thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/tenant herein.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:-

The appellant/landlord filed a suit being R.C.S. No.473/2002 against the respondent/tenant in the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur for possession of the suit premises under Section 16(1) (a), (b), (c) and (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant. The learned trial Judge vide judgment and order dated 27th November, 2006 decreed the suit. It is not in dispute that the said decree has been affirmed up to the Apex Court. After the decree was passed, the execution proceedings vide Special Darkhast No.2/2007 came to be filed by the appellant before the Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur. In the said proceedings, on 20th January, 2010 an application vide Exh.52 came to be filed by the respondent under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code objecting that since the suit property was notified as a slum area vide notification dated 24th January, 1976, in view of Section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Slums Act’ for short), no suit or proceedings for obtaining any decree or order for eviction of an occupier from any building or land in slum area is maintainable unless prior permission is obtained from the Competent Authority under Section 22 of the Slums Act. A reply was filed below Exh.53 by the appellant disputing that the suit property falls within the slum area, as notified by the notification dated 24th January, 1976. A further objection was also raised that since it was a disputed question of facts, it would not be permissible for Executing Court to investigate into the said issue. However, the learned trial Judge permitted the respondent/tenant to lead evidence in that regard. In the meantime, the respondent/tenant had approached the Competent Authority with an application seeking a finding that the permission of the Competent Authority was required under Section 22 of the Slums Act. An order came to be passed by the Competent Authority on 14th October, 2010 thereby directing the appellant to obtain previous permission in writing from the Competent Authority for executing the decree. The learned trial Judge vide judgment and order dated 20th December, 2010 rejected the objection. The learned trial Judge held that an objection of the nature, which was raised by the respondent/tenant, could not have been raised for the first time in the execution proceedings. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent/tenant filed writ petition being Writ Petition No.176/2011. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13th April, 2011 partly allowed the said writ petition. The learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Executing Court to decide the application filed by the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge further observed that it is necessary for the Executing Court to consider the effect of the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 14th October, 2010 along with other documents placed on record by the parties. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

3. Shri Bhangde, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the Single Judge has grossly erred in allowing the writ petition. The learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that the order, which is passed by the learned Single Judge, is in fact in the nature of permitting the Executing Court to go beyond the decree, which is not permissible in the execution proceedings. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in case of FattechandMurlidhar Shop, Sitabuldi, Nagpur V/s. Shrikrishna Tejmalji Chandak reported in AIR 1984