JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Opposite party was a monthly, tenant in respect of a house belonging to the Petitioner situated on the main road, Rourkela, an area to which the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter stated as 'the Act') has been made applicable. 2. Opposite party filed an application u/s 10 of the Act. It was numbered as House Rent Control Case No. 11 of 1975 before the House Rent Controller, Panposh. Opposite party prayed to permit him to remodel and to repair the house under the supervision of a commissioner to be appointed by the House Rent Controller. 3. On 22-1-1977, a compromise was recorded between both the parties. The terms of the compromise were to the effect that the opposite party would temporarily vacate the house and give delivery of possession of the same to the Petitioner. After taking possession of the case-house Petitioner would make construction of a new house for the purpose of being used as a shop-room. After construction, the opposite party would be inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. During the period of construction of the new shoproom, the relationship of landlord and tenant would continue. 4. The House-Rent Controller disposed of the House Rent Control Case in terms of the compromise and drew up a formal decree in the proforma for a civil suit. This formal decree was signed by the Bench Clerk, the Sheristadar and the House Rent Controller. 5. Under the scheme of the Act and the rules made thereunder, there is no scope for drawing up of a decree. The scheme envisages orders to be passed. The records do not disclose under what circumstances a decree was drawn up. 6. There is no dispute that in terms of the compromise, Petitioner constructed the house. However, Petitioner did not induct the opposite party as a tenant. 7. Having failed to get back possession of the house in terms of the compromise on the basis of which an order was passed by the House Rent Controller, opposite party filed Execution Case No. 20 of 1977 in the Court of Munsif, Panposh seeking delivery of possession of the house as per the compromise decree. 8. 7. Having failed to get back possession of the house in terms of the compromise on the basis of which an order was passed by the House Rent Controller, opposite party filed Execution Case No. 20 of 1977 in the Court of Munsif, Panposh seeking delivery of possession of the house as per the compromise decree. 8. Petitioner filed an objection to the execution of the decree only on the ground that the opposite party did not come forward to execute the agreement in terms of the compromises inspite of notice to him. 9. The learned Munsif rejected the objection on the following finding: ...Moreover, the J. Dr. has also not challenged anything in the matter of execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree. His only contention is that he has served a notice to the D. Hr/Tenant asking him to take possession of the case shop house. But the copy of such notice is not available in the record. Therefore, the show cause of the J. Dr. does not merit any consideration. Accordingly, the execution petition is allowed. D. Hr is directed to take steps through Court for getting delivery of possession of the case house by 23-6-1981 as summer vacation intervenes. 10. This Civil Revision has been filed against the aforesaid order of the learned Munsif. 11. Mr. B.L.N. Swami, learned Counsel for the Petitioner assails the order on the ground that the decree in terms of the compromise is beyond the jurisdiction of the House Rent Controller and an order which does not satisfy the pre-conditions of Section 15 of the Act is not deemed to be a decree. Thus, the learned Munsif has no jurisdiction to execute the order. 12. Submission of Mr. B.L.N. Swami, requires careful consideration specially when the opposite party, the tenant under the Act is not appearing in the revision and the Act is a benevolent statute to give protection to the tenants. 13. The first question for consideration is whether a tenant can be put out of possession of the house within the scope of Section 10 of the Act. The Section reads as follows: 10. 13. The first question for consideration is whether a tenant can be put out of possession of the house within the scope of Section 10 of the Act. The Section reads as follows: 10. Landlord to effect repairs- (1) If the landlord fails to effect normal repairs to the house and thereby renders the house uninhabitable, the tenant may make an application to the Controller, who may, after making such enquiry as he deems fit direct the landlord to effect such repairs as may be necessary in the opinion of the Controller within a reasonable period to be fixed by him. (2) In case the landlord fails to comply with the directions issued under Sub-section (1) the Controller may authorise the tenant to effect the repairs at his own cost and to adjust the amount so spend against the rent payable to the landlord in such number of installments as may be fixed by the Controller: Provided that the tenant shall not be entitled to adjust any amount spent in excess of the amount which, in the opinion of the Controller, would have been reasonably necessary for effecting the said repairs: 14. A bare perusal of Section 10 of the Act would indicate that the liability of effecting normal repairs to a house is on the landlord. This is a new provision incorporated to the Act. The previous legislations on this question were silent. Accordingly, the general law in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act IV of 1882) governed the field. A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Md. Usmain Khan v. Hari Sahu and Anr. 1973 (1) C.W.R. 715 has held: Under the Transfer of Property Act which is the general law on the subject it is ordinarily the duty of the tenant to keep the accommodation in good repairs and to hand over the possession of the accommodation in the very condition in which it was taken. See Steuart and Co. Ltd. Vs. C. Mackertich. The Rent Control Acts have reversed this obligation and have imposed a statutory obligation on the landlord to maintain the accommodation in good condition by effecting necessary repairs. In the reported decision the house was about 100 years old. It was found to be uninhabitable. Repairs had not been effected in time. See Steuart and Co. Ltd. Vs. C. Mackertich. The Rent Control Acts have reversed this obligation and have imposed a statutory obligation on the landlord to maintain the accommodation in good condition by effecting necessary repairs. In the reported decision the house was about 100 years old. It was found to be uninhabitable. Repairs had not been effected in time. In such circumstances, this Court held that, the appellate authority would find if the tenant is required to temporarily vacate the house for effecting the repairs. In case temporary eviction of the tenant would be necessary appellate authority would issue a direction for the tenant to be put back in possession after the time fixed by it for effecting the repair by the landlord. The effect of the Division Bench decision is that in a case where temporary eviction of a tenant would be necessary to effect, the repairs, he can be evicted from the house temporarily to enable the landlord to effect the repair. Though the Division Bench held that a direction can be issued to put back the tenant to possession of the house after effecting the repair on enhanced rent if required, it was not considered how the direction of the authority can be executed where such direction is not complied with. The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench is, however, not applicable to the facts of this case. It is true that the house in dispute in the Division Bench case was a shop house. As has been narrated earlier the shop house was an old one which on account of went of repairs was in an uninhabitable condition. In the present case, there is no iota of evidence that the house was in an uninhabitable condition. All that is found from the records is that for the purpose of construction of a new house to be used as a shoproom the compromise was effected for temporary eviction of the tenant. Construction of a new house would not come within the meaning of normal repairs as envisaged in Section 10 of the Act. Once it does not come within the scope of normal repairs, Section 10 is not attracted. A compromise beyond the scope of Section 10 would not make the order in terms of compromise to be one u/s 10 of the Act. Once it does not come within the scope of normal repairs, Section 10 is not attracted. A compromise beyond the scope of Section 10 would not make the order in terms of compromise to be one u/s 10 of the Act. The House Rent Controller, therefore, had no jurisdiction to pass the order even u/s 10 of the Act. 15. In case the order would have come within the scope of Section 10 of the Act, the question that arises for consideration is whether such an order is executable as a decree. 16. Under the Act the House Rent Controller has not been given the power to execute its own order. The Munsif within whose territorial jurisdiction the house is situated has been given the power to execute the order envisaged therein. All orders under the Act are not executable. Section 15 of the Act reads as follows: 15. Court to deliver possession: The order of the Controller made u/s 7 directing to the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house shall be deemed to be a decree and shall be executable as such in the Court of the Munsif within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the house is situated. 17. In attract Section 15 of the Act, the Following conditions are to be satisfied: (a) Order sought to be executed has been passed u/s 7 of the Act. (b) Order u/s 7 of the Act is a direction to the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house. 18. In this case, the order is purported to be one u/s 10. The first condition is not satisfied. Any direction under the Act, to the landlord to put back the tenant in possession would not bring it within the purview of Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, the second condition for attracting Section 15 is also not satisfied. Apart from the provision in Section 15 of the Act, there is no other provision in the Act authorising execution of an order. Therefore, the Court of Munsif had no jurisdiction to execute the order. 19. Accordingly, the second condition for attracting Section 15 is also not satisfied. Apart from the provision in Section 15 of the Act, there is no other provision in the Act authorising execution of an order. Therefore, the Court of Munsif had no jurisdiction to execute the order. 19. It is seen from the order rejecting the objection that no objection was raised to the executability of the order either on account of lack of jurisdiction of the House Rent Controller to pass the order or on account of lack of jurisdiction of the learned Munsif to execute the order. 20. In matters of initial lack of jurisdiction, the authority exercising the jurisdiction is to examine whether it has the initial jurisdiction. Order in this case which is in the form of a formal decree under Code of Civil Procedure, itself indicates that the House Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass an order u/s 10 of the Act. The order having indicated to be one u/s 10 of the Act, Executing Court had also no jurisdiction. No enquiry of fact was necessary. In the absence of jurisdiction the order is inexecutable. No objection was necessary to be raised in such a case. Direction to execute the order by the learned Munsif amounts to exercise of jurisdiction not vested in law. There is no provision for challenging a an order u/s 15 in appeal. Accordingly, be impugned order is revisable u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure. 21. In the result, the Civil Revision is allowed and the order of the learned Munsif, Panposh directing the landlord to put the tenant in possession is set aside. As the opposite party has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice, there will be no older as to costs. Final Result : Allowed