An executing court cannot go behind the decree and must take the decree according to its tenor. The cancellation of leasehold rights by the paramount landlord does not affect the validity of the decree against the tenant.

( 1 ) TIRLOK Singh, respondent, held leasehold rights in a plot of land under the Delhi Improvement Trust. On March 20, 1947 he conveyed his said rights to the appellants Hafiz Rahini Udin and others, by a registered deed of sale. The appellants were also given possession of the land. In or about September, 1947 when there were communal riots and disturbances, at the time of the partition of the country, the appellants appear to have lost control over the said land, and could not manage and retain physical possession thereof. The respondent, at that time, took back the possession of the said plot. On January 29, 1958, the appellants filed a suit for possession against the respondent in respect of the suit land. This suit was decreed on March 30, 1959. Respondent s appeal was dismissed on October 17,1961.

( 2 ) ON November 1, 1962 the appellants took out execution of their decree against the respondent, who filed his objections thereto. According to him the decree had become inexecutable, inter alia, on the ground that the lease-hold rights had been cancelled by the Delhi Improvement Trust, the paramount landlords, on October 14, 1962. The decree-holder appellants were said to have thus lost all rights in the said land. The appellant-decree-holders denied the alleged cancelling of the lease-hold rights or the inexecutability of the decree. The executing Court found that the lease in favour of the decreeholder appellant had been cancelled by the Delhi Development Authority and, therefore, there was no right or interest left with the decreeholder in the land in suit. The decree as such was held to have become inexecutable. Respondent s objections were accepted and the execution application was dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge concurred with the executing Court in appeal, which was dismissed. The appellants have come up to this Court in second appeal.

( 3 ) THE Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the executing Court can take notice of the subsequent events. The decree if executed would result in infringement of the law as the occupation of the appellants would be unauthorised occupation under section 2 (e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.

( 4 ) TTHE entire approach of the Courts below, as of the learned counsel for the respondent is wrong. The executing Court cannot go behind the decree. So long as the decree stands, it has got to be executed. In Singaravela alias Singaram Chetliar v. Pattammal, AIR 1949 Mad 429 (1), it was held that a decree for maintenance passed against a Hindu husband confers on the wife an unconditional and absolute right of maintenance, the executing Court in execution proceedings cannot enquire into an objection by husband that the wife has forfeited her right under the decree owing to her having led an unchaste life subsequent to the passing of the decree. The husband s remedy is by way of a separate suit and not by way of an objection to the execution of the decree. (Also see R. Viswanathan and others v. Abdul Wafid and others, AIR 1952 Mys 94 (2) and Girdhari Lal v. Madan Lal, 1968 DLT 435.

( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in Vasuduv Dhanji Bhai Modi v. Rajahhai Abdul Rehinan and others, CA 406 of 1967, decided on March 18. 1970, observed : "a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree between the parties or their representatives. It must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties. When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representatives on the record of such a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed, an objection in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for executio