Subject-matter jurisdiction defeats eviction decree: void orders can be challenged in execution despite finality.

A decree for ejectment concerning premises governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act was held to be a nullity because the civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; exclusive jurisdiction lay with the Rent Controller and a decree passed without such jurisdiction was coram non judice and non est. The Court also held that this jurisdictional defect could be raised in execution despite finality of the decree, since res judicata cannot validate a void decree. Prospective overruling was inapplicable because the later declaration of law did not create jurisdiction and judicial interpretation ordinarily operates retrospectively. The eviction decree was therefore unenforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a decree for ejectment passed by a civil court in respect of premises governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is a nullity and inexecutable where the civil court lacked jurisdiction; (ii) whether such a decree can be questioned in execution despite finality of the decree and the plea of prospective overruling based on a later declaration of law.

Issue (i): whether a decree for ejectment passed by a civil court in respect of premises governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is a nullity and inexecutable where the civil court lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Rent Controller for eviction of tenants from premises covered by the Act, and Section 50 barred civil court jurisdiction in such matters. A decree passed by a court without subject-matter jurisdiction is coram non judice, lacks inherent validity, and is non est. The later declaration that commercial tenancies were heritable did not create jurisdiction in the civil court; it only declared the legal position as it stood.

Conclusion: The decree for ejectment was a nullity and could not be executed.

Issue (ii): whether such a decree can be questioned in execution despite finality of the decree and the plea of prospective overruling based on a later declaration of law.

Analysis: A jurisdictional defect can be raised whenever enforcement is sought, including in execution and collateral proceedings. Finality and res judicata do not validate a decree passed without inherent jurisdiction. The doctrine of prospective overruling was inapplicable because the earlier declaration of law was not made prospective, and judicial interpretation ordinarily relates back to the date of the statute.

Conclusion: The judgment-debtors were entitled to object in execution, and the objection was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The orders below were set aside, and the decree-holder could not enforce the eviction decree because it was passed by a court lacking jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree passed by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is a nullity and may be challenged at the execution stage; judicial interpretation of law ordinarily operates retrospectively unless expressly made prospective.

---