Executing Court cannot go behind the decree.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. This civil revision petition is admitted. Mr.R.Subramanian appears for the respondent. Heard both the counsel at length. By consent of both, this civil revision petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The above civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry in E.A.No.70 of 1993 in E.P. No.44 of 1992 in H.R.C.O.P. No.90 of 1988. The petitioner is the landlord. The learned Principal District Munsif allowed E.A.No.70 of 1993 which was filed under Secs.47,94(e) and 151,C.P.C.,seeking to determine and adjudicate that the decree and the order under execution is a nullity and incapable of execution and consequently to dismiss the E.P. and far other reliefs. The petitions was presented on 17. 1993 before the said court. The respondent is a tenant. Before the learned District Munsif, the respondent herein challenged the decree under execution on the ground that it is one passed without jurisdiction and consequently is incapable of execution before the said court. The lower court, however, rejected the allegation of the respondent that she was not aware of the proceedings in the rent control proceedings and held that such a plea cannot be accepted. The lower court, after a detailed consideration of the materials placed before it, allowed the E.A. Aggrieved against the said order, the present civil revision petition has been instituted.

3. The petitioner herein, who is the owner of the premises in question, filed a petition under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for eviction of the respondent. According to him, he is residing at present at 1/4, Kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry in a rented premises and he is not having any residential building in the same commune, and therefore, he is in need of the premises for his personal occupation. The petitioner further contended that when he requested the respondent to quit and deliver possession of the demised premises, the respondent requested some time to vacate the premises, but even after the time requested, the respondent has not vacated the premises and therefore, the petition is filed before the rent control court for eviction of the respondent on the ground of personal occupation.On 3rd November, 1988, the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif, passed an order in the presence of Mr.C.P. Thirunavukarasu, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P. Krishnamoorthy, counsel for the respondent, on the basis of an endorsement made by the respondent. The order reads as follows:

‘‘This is a petition praying to grant an order of eviction as against the respondent directing her to hand over possession of the premises mentioned in the schedule. When the petition came up for hearing, the respondent makes endorsement that he would vacate within three years. Petitioner also agrees. Hence, petition allowed with costs. Time for eviction three years.“

The petitioner after the expiry of three years filed E.P.No.44 of 1992 for the delivery of the premises in question. Delivery was also ordered as prayed for in the E.P. In the meanwhile, the respondent herein filed E.A.No.70 of 1993 under Secs.47, 94(e) and 151, C.P.C. requesting the court to determine and adjudicate that the decree and order under execution is a nullity and incapable of execution and consequently dismiss the E.P., and in paragraph-3 of the affidavit in E.A.No.70 1993, the respondent states as follows:

”I swear my understanding that the said order and decree for eviction (put in execution in this E.P.) does not satisfy the requirements of law inasmuch as the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to pass such decree without satisfying himself of the truth of the existence of the ground of personal occupation as alleged by the landlord. Inasmuch as the order and decree does not even whisper anything about such satisfaction and inasmuch as the said compromise also does not contain an admission as t