Exclusive rent control jurisdiction: civil court decree without subject-matter jurisdiction is void and open to challenge in execution.

Where a special rent control statute vests eviction jurisdiction exclusively in the designated Controller, the civil court is excluded by necessary implication from entertaining or decreeing an ejectment suit. The premises remained governed by the rent control regime, and the municipal-land exemption did not apply on the facts. A decree passed without subject-matter jurisdiction is void and non est, so it may be challenged whenever enforcement is sought, including in execution. Such a jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by consent or waiver, and a prior decision on jurisdiction does not operate as res judicata. The impugned decree and execution orders were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the civil court had inherent jurisdiction to entertain and decree a suit for ejectment where the premises were governed by the special rent control statute; (ii) whether a decree passed by a court lacking such jurisdiction was a nullity capable of being challenged in execution and whether it operated as res judicata.

Issue (i): whether the civil court had inherent jurisdiction to entertain and decree a suit for ejectment where the premises were governed by the special rent control statute.

Analysis: The statutory scheme gave the tenant protection against eviction and vested the power to order eviction in the Controller, with the civil court's jurisdiction excluded by necessary implication. The premises, though partly standing on municipal land, were held to remain a building governed by the rent control statute, and the exemption for municipal land did not apply to the building as found on the facts.

Conclusion: The civil court lacked inherent jurisdiction, and the Controller alone was competent to decide the eviction claim.

Issue (ii): whether a decree passed by a court lacking such jurisdiction was a nullity capable of being challenged in execution and whether it operated as res judicata.

Analysis: A decree passed without subject-matter jurisdiction is void, non est, and may be impeached whenever it is sought to be enforced, including in execution proceedings. A decision on jurisdiction or a pure question of law unrelated to the underlying right does not operate as res judicata, and absence of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or waiver. On that basis, the prior ex parte adjudication did not bar the objection in execution.

Conclusion: The decree was a nullity, the objection was maintainable in execution, and res judicata did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The impugned decree and the orders sustaining execution could not stand because the suit had been entertained by a forum lacking jurisdiction under the special statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates the right to eviction and entrusts its adjudication to a designated authority, the civil court is excluded from entertaining the matter, and any decree passed without such inherent jurisdiction is void, non est, and open to challenge even in execution notwithstanding res judicata or waiver.

---