( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 22-2-1988 passed in E. P. No. 25 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the learned trial judge has held that the decree passed in favour of the petitioner was not an executable one.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed a suit O. S. No. 3863 of 1980 before the XI Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the respondent-judgment-debtor and, on 24-10-1983, the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner herein. Thereafter, an application purported to be under order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil procedure was filed for delivery of possession of immovable property and for a sum of Rs. 1,028. 00 against the judgment-debtor No. 1 and the schedule of property mentioned in the application. An objection was, however, raised by the judgment-debtor that the Execution Petition was not maintainable. The learned executing Court concurred with the said contention of the judgment-debtor and in support thereof relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in motor General Traders vs. State of A. P.

( 3 ) MR. Ranganadham, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned executing Court went wrong in passing the impugned order insofar as it had no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree. The learned Counsel would contend that the question, which had been gone into as an issue in the suit, is as to whether the judgment-debtor - defendant was in wrongful occupation of the suit schedule property or not could not have been reopened. The learned Counsel would urge that in this view of the matter the impugned judgment must be set aside. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of a learned Single judge of this Court in Union Bank vs. M. C. Ankaiah.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner herein filed the aforementioned suit as a landlord. It is also not in dispute that the a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (hereinafter would be referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) would apply in the instant case.

( 5 ) IN Motor General Traders (supra) a question as to whether Section 32 (b) of the said Act is unconstitutional or not has come up for consideration before the Apex Court, and the Apex Court held that the said provision, being discriminatory in nature, was unconstitutional. The Apex Court also held:"21. . . . . WITH the passage of time, the validity of historical considerations on which Sec. 87-B is founded will wear out and the continuance of the said section in the Code of Civil Procedure may later be open to serious challenge. 22. . . . . there is a firm foundation laid in support of the provision that, what once a non-discriminatory piece of legislation may in course of time become discriminatory and be exposed to a successful challenge on the ground that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. This is a sufficient answer to the contention that if at the time when the Act was enacted sec. 32 (b) of the Act was not unconstitutional, it cannot at any time thereafter be challenged on the ground of unconstitutionality. "

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that in terms of the provisions of the said Act the petitioner was required to file a suit before the rent Controller. He did not do so. The xi Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad, was not the appropriate court, before whom a suit under the said act could be filed. The said Court was, thus, lacking inherent jurisdiction in entertaining the suit, as a result whereof, the decree passed by it became a nullity.

( 7 ) THE decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Union Bank (supra) has no application in the instant case, inasmuch as, therein, the question which fell for consideration was as to whether the executing Court can go behind the decree with a view to find out as to whether the court passing the decree had a requisite pecuniary jurisdiction or not. Havi