Objection to jurisdiction may be raised in execution proceedings.

This petition is filed by the tenant to revise the order of the learned District Judge of Madurai, dismissing the revision petition filed by him under section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order passed by the District Munsif, Tirumangalam in E.P. No. 57 of 1968 in R.C.O.P. No. 21 of 1963. The dispute between the parties arose under the following circumstances. The respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction against the tenant-petitioner under section 10 (2) (1) of the Act on 8th August, 1963 before the Rent Controller. The ground alleged in the petition was that the tenant had committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the period 14th January, 1963 upto 16th July. On 19th October, 1963, the tenant, who had been served with notice, appeared in Court and made an endorsement to the following effect:

"The respondent hereby agrees that in future he will pay the petitioner regularly the monthly rent due for every Tamil month on or before the 10th of the succeeding Tamil month. I hereby agree that in case I fail to pay in future the rent due for a month on or before the 10th of the succeeding month, the petitioner shall in these very proceedings and without notice to me, take possession of the petition schedule premises. Judgment may be rendered in accordance with these terms.

This endorsement was signed by the tenant on 19th October, 1963. Below his signature the landlord’s advocate made the following endorsement;

"Eviction order may be passed on the above terms".

On the same date the Rent Controller passed the following order:

"Joint endorsement made. Petition is ordered in terms of the joint endorsement."

It is important to note that nothing is stated in the endorsement about the claim made by the landlord for arrears of rent due by the tenant for the period from 14th January, 1963 upto 16th July, 1963. As the endorsement dated 19th October, 1963 contemplates only a default in the payment of future rent, it must be assumed that all arrears of rent due by the tenant upto 19th October, 1963 had been paid to the landlord. There is no admission in the endorsement that the tenant has committed any default, much less wilful default. Nor is there anything in the order of the Court to show that any ground justifying the eviction of the tenant had been established or admitted. Subsequent to the date of the order passed in terms of the joint endorsement the tenant continued to be in possession of the premises and was paying the monthly rent regularly for a period of more than four years. However, on 6th January, 1968, the landlord filed an execution petition praying for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he had committed wilful default in payment of rent, for October, November, 1967. The tenant contested the application on the ground that the order passed by the Rent Controller on foot of the joint endorsement was not executable and that if any default had been committed by him in the payment of rent for a period long subsequent to the date of the joint endorsement, the landlord was liable to file another petition for eviction under section 10 (2) (i) of the Act and could not validly execute the order dated 19th October, 1963 thereby circumventing the provisions of the special enactment. This contention was rejected by the learned District Munsif on the execution side and revision filed against this order before the learned District Judge, Madurai, met with the same fate.

It is well-settled that where the tenancy is governed by the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, it is not open to the landlord or the tenant to contract themselves out of the obligations under the Act, or to agree to resort to a procedure not contemplated by the Act. A scrutiny of the entire scheme of the Act shows that notwithstanding contracts to the contrary, the Legislature intended to regulate the letting of residential and non-residential bui