ORDER P.V. Dixit, C.J. This appeal has come up before us on a reference by the learned single Judge before whom the appeal first came up for hearing. The material facts are that in a suit instituted by the respondent for the eviction of the appellant from a certain tenanted house, a decree for ejectment was passed on 31st July 1958. The appellant then preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. During the pendency of that appeal, the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, came into force on 1st January 1959. The tenant, however, omitted to avail himself of the benefit of any of the provisions of the Act and to urge that the landlord was not entitled to any decree for ejectment without establishing any of the grounds mentioned in section 4 of the Act. The decree of the trial Court was upheld by the appellate Court on 31st January 1959. In execution proceedings of that decree the appellant raised the objection that in view of sections 16 and 17 of the Act, he could not be evicted from the house in question, without the landlord establishing any of the grounds for eviction under section 4. The executing Court overruled the objection on the ground that as it had not been raised earlier the appellant was barred by the principle of res judicata from taking the objection. This view of the executing Court was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Bhopal. The tenant then filed the present appeal in this Court repeating the contention advanced by him in the executing Court. No specific question has been stated by the learned single Judge for our opinion. The learned single Judge has, however, referred to us the whole appeal for final disposal. As we read the order of reference, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether in execution proceedings of a decree for eviction passed after the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, it is open to the judgment-debtor to object to the execution on the ground that the decree was bad as it was passed by the civil Court even though no ground for eviction under section 4 of the Act existed. The question does not present any difficulty in answering it. The question does not present any difficulty in answering it. Section 16 of the Act relates to execution of a decree for eviction passed before the date of the commencement of the Act. Section 17 deals with the passing of a decree for eviction in suits pending when the Act came into force. So far as the execution of a decree for eviction passed after the coming into force of the Act is concerned, the matter is governed by the well settled principle that an executing Court must take and execute a decree as it stands except where it is shown that the Court passing the decree had no inherent jurisdiction to pass it. It is only when a decree on the face of it appears to be a nullity as having been passed by a Court without jurisdiction that the executing Court has jurisdiction to refuse to execute it. The Court executing the decree is not competent to embark on an enquiry into facts tending to show that the Court which passed it had no jurisdiction to do so. It has been repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court, Privy Council and by various High Courts that a decree may not be according to law, yet it is binding and conclusive between the parties until it is set aside in appeal or in revision and the executing Court has no jurisdiction to refuse to execute the decree on the ground that it is not according to law. [See Shri Raja Papamma Rao v. Shri Vira Pratapa H.V. Ramchandra Razu ILR 19 Mad 249 (PC); Gorachand Haldar v. Prafulla Kumar ILR 53 Cal 166 (FB) : AIR 1925 Cal 907; Jnanendra Mohan v. Rabindra Nath ILR 60 Cal 670 (PC) : AIR 1933 PC 61; Bhagsingh v. Govindram 1943 NLJ 486 : ILR 1943 Nag 757 and Ramswami Aiyengar v. Kailash Thevar AIR 1951 SC 189 : 1951 SCR 292 . The objection which the appellant raised in the executing Court was merely this that the decree for eviction was not according to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955. This objection was not open to the appellant. The objection which the appellant raised in the executing Court was merely this that the decree for eviction was not according to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955. This objection was not open to the appellant. This matter has been fully dealt with in Jalan Singh v. Fida Hussain AIR 1954 MB 89 where a tenant against whom a consent decree for eviction was passed objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that it had not been made on any of the grounds specified in section 4. It was held that if a civil Court passes a decree for ejectment whether on contest or on compromise, even if none of the grounds mentioned in section 4 of the Act is present, the decree would none-the-less be a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction; and that, therefore, the executing Court would have no jurisdiction to refuse to execute it on the ground that it was not according to law. The reference must, therefore, be answered by saying that it is now not open to the appellant to resist the execution of the decree on the ground that it is not in conformity with section 4 of the Act. As the learned single Judge has referred the whole of the case to us for disposal and as the decision in the appeal turns on this question alone, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed