SRINIVASA IYENGAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of proceedings taken out to execute an order of eviction made in favour of the respondent in HRC. 30/1965 on the file of the principal Munsiff, Bijapur, dt. 31-5-1972. That order, inter alia, directed the present petitioner who was the respondent therein to pay to the landlady or deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 253-74 plus Rs. 25 within one month from the date of the order. It further directed that on, the failure, the petitioner shall vaca,te the premises and put the landlady in possession of the suit premises. On the ground that no such deppsit had been made as required in terms of the order; Respondent took out execution, proceedings. The application was contested. It was contended that the deposit had been made on 1-6-1972 and the execution application was, therefore, not maintainable. A further contention had been raised that in spite of attempts to pay the amount to tthe decree-holder, she had evaded receiving the amount. The executing Court on a construction, of the decree held tha,t the amount had to be deposited on 30-6-1972 and therefore there was no compliance with the terms thereof. It also held that there was no proof that the decree-holder had evaded receiving payment. Accordingly, execution proceedings were directed to proceed. The judgment-debtor preferred an appeal against that order and the order of the trial Court was confirmed. ( 2 ) IN this appeal, it is contended that the decree made was without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity and execution petition should have been dismissed. The argument is that under S. 21 (2) (b) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961, a date should have been fixed for payment of the arrears and a peremptory order directing eviction even before that day was without jurisdiction. For the respondent it is contended that the court had jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction in terms it did and the order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or a nullity and even if the order was not in accordance with the provisions of S. 21 (2) (b) of the act, it is only an error and the decree was not one without jurisdiction and its validity cannot be questioned in execution proceedings and the remedy of the judgment-debtor was only to have the decree corrected in appeal or otherwise. ( 3 ) IN support of the contention urged for the petitioner, an unreported decision in Ex-S. A. 31/1973 dt. 5-7-1973, Ex. S. A. 31|73. is relied upon. That appeal also arose out' of execution proceedings. The decree provided for making payment and deposit into Court a sum of money on or before 20th Octr, 1967 and had further provided that on default the petitioner was entitled to recovery of possession of a premises. The learned Judge held that the portion of the decree in regard to the making of the deposit was a good and valid order, but that the further direction that if the tenant committed default in the payment of the arrears of rent on or before 20th Octr, 1967, he should deliver possession of the premises,, was "premature and without jurisdiction". ( 4 ) IT is now well settled that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree and it must be executed according to its tenor. it. is also well settled that the contention that the decree is a nullity on the ground that it is one made with no inherent jurisdiction to make it, can be raised before the executing Court. In Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Reh- man, AIR. 1970 SC. 1475. it was held as follows :"a Court executing a decree cannot go behind 'the decree between the parties or their representatives; it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between tthe parties. When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representatives on, the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may be raised in a, proceeding for execution. When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representatives on, the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may be raised in a, proceeding for execution. Again, when the decree is made by a Court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record: where the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. " ( 5 ) THE Courts below have on a construction of the decree held that the deposit had to be made on or before 30-6-1972 and it being admitted that no such deposit had been made, there was no impediment for the decree being executed. The provision in the decree fixing a date to make the deposit of certain sums of money ascertained and the consequence to follow if such deposit was not made is in substance an order as envisaged under S. 21 (2) (b) of the Rent Control Act. The Court had jurisdiction to pass an order for eviction and also to determine the amount payable by way of arrears of rent. The Court had jurisdiction to determine the arrears of rent and to direct it to be deposited by a particular date and also to provide what should happen if a default was committed. The argument on behalf of the appellant amounts only to this, that the Court should have first determined the amount and the date by which it should have been deposited and waited for the expiry of that date and then made an order for eviction, if default had been committed in making the deposit. While such a course is desirable, it does not mean that if such course is not followed, the order is a nullity or without jurisdiction. While such a course is desirable, it does not mean that if such course is not followed, the order is a nullity or without jurisdiction. All that may be said is that there is an error of procedure or that the provisions have not been strictly followed but the failure to follow such a procedure would not lead to the conclusion that the order made was without jurisdiction or made by a Court which lacks inherent jurisdiction. The highest at which it can be put is that the decree was not in accordance with law. But that is different from saying that it was one made without jurisdiction or anullity. We may usefully refer in this behalf to the observations of the supreme Court in Paradise Industrial Corpn v. Kiln Plastics Products, AIR. 1976 SC. 309. In that case an order had been made under S. 11 (4) of the Bombay Rents, hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (1947) directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within a stipulated period and to continue to deposit monthly rent and a further order was made that in default of the deposit the defences of 'the. defendants were to be struck off. It was contended that such an order was without jurisdiction. At Page 312 it was observed as follows :"the order squarely falls within S. 11 (4 ). What the law contemplates is not adoption or use of a formula; it looks at the substance. The order is not therefore one without jurisdiction. It is one which the Judge was competent to make. "with great respect, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of 'the learned single Judge in Ex. S. A. 31/1973 (1) that such an order is without jurisdiction. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we hold the deposit having not been made within time, the decree-holder was entitled to execute the decree and there was no tenable defence for the! execution of the decree. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is. dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .