Arbitral award validity cannot be reopened in execution, but a rent-control barred eviction decree is a nullity; severable relief survives.

A decree passed on an arbitral award cannot have the award's validity reopened in execution; challenges to the award had to be raised before the court under the Arbitration Act, and a decree passed on the award was not a nullity merely because the award was alleged to be invalid. A decree for recovery of possession in favour of a landlord against a tenant, passed in direct contravention of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, was a nullity and could not be executed. The portion of the decree directing removal of machinery was severable from the eviction relief and remained valid and executable on its own terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the validity of an arbitral award can be challenged in execution after a decree has been passed on the award, and whether such decree can be treated as a nullity on the ground that the award was invalid; (ii) Whether a decree for recovery of possession in favour of a landlord and against a tenant, passed on an award without compliance with Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, is a nullity and executable; (iii) Whether the separable part of the decree directing removal of machinery is valid and executable by the landlord's son.

Issue (i): Whether the validity of an arbitral award can be challenged in execution after a decree has been passed on the award, and whether such decree can be treated as a nullity on the ground that the award was invalid.

Analysis: The award had been filed in court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and, after notice and in the presence of the parties, a decree was passed according to the award under Section 17. The scheme of the Arbitration Act required all questions about the validity of the award to be raised before the court where the award was filed. An award alleged to be invalid had to be set aside under Section 30. Once a decree is passed on the award, the parties to the reference cannot reopen the validity of the award in execution proceedings, and the decree is not rendered a nullity merely because the award may have been invalid.

Conclusion: The objection to the validity of the award could not be entertained in execution, and the decree was not a nullity on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether a decree for recovery of possession in favour of a landlord and against a tenant, passed on an award without compliance with Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, is a nullity and executable.

Analysis: Section 13(1) prohibited any court from passing a decree or order for recovery of possession in favour of a landlord against a tenant except in a suit or proceeding of the kind contemplated by the Act and only upon satisfaction that a permitted ground of eviction existed. The decree in question was for recovery of possession in favour of a landlord against a tenant, but it was passed on an award in a proceeding to which the landlord was not a party and without the court being satisfied that any statutory ground for eviction existed. In these circumstances the statutory bar operated directly against the passing of the decree, and the decree offended the express mandate of the Rent Control Act.

Conclusion: The decree for delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord was a nullity and could not be executed.

Issue (iii): Whether the separable part of the decree directing removal of machinery is valid and executable by the landlord's son.

Analysis: The portion of the decree relating to removal of machinery was distinct from the eviction portion and did not depend upon the invalidity affecting the possession decree. It was therefore capable of separate enforcement on its own terms.

Conclusion: The decree directing removal of the machinery was valid and executable by the landlord's son.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the award failed in execution, the eviction portion of the decree was held unenforceable as contrary to the Rent Control Act, and the machinery-removal portion survived as a valid and severable decree.

Ratio Decidendi: After a decree is passed on an award, the award's validity cannot ordinarily be reopened in execution, but a decree passed in direct contravention of a prohibitory rent-control statute is a nullity to that extent and is unenforceable, while a severable unaffected part of the decree may still be executed.

---