S. S. CHADHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of C. W. P. No. 3106/85 and S. A. O. 104/86 as common questions of facts and law are involved. ( 2 ) M/s. Nannai Mal Janki Dass are the owners/landlords of the premises No. 3644. situate in Gali Lohe Wali. Chawri Bazar. Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the premises in dispute ). The premises in dispute were let out to late Ram Gopal at a monthly rent of Rs. 125. 00 in the year 1957. The landlords filed an ejectment petition under S. 14 ( l) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 thereinafter referred to as the Act) against late Ram Gopal. Late Ram Gopal obtained the benefit of S. 14 (2) of the Act and the eviction petition was dismissed. The owners filed a second petition u/s. 14 (2) of the Act for ejectment of late Ram Gopal on the ground of second default. That was case No. 991/63 of the Court of Rent Controller. Delhi. The Rent Controller passed on October 28. 1964 an order for recovery of possession of the premises in suit in favour of the landlords against late Ram Gopal for non-payment of rent. An appeal filed by late Ram Gopal against the order dated October 28. 1964 of the Rent Controller was dismissed on February 24, 1965 by the Rent Control Tribunal. Delhi. The owners then filed on August 28, 1965 an application under S. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 1956 (for short called Slum Act) seeking permission of the Competent Authority to execute the order of ejectment. The Competent Authority by order dated September 1, 1966 refused permission to the owners to execute the order of eviction. The owners then filed an appeal under S. 20 of the Slum Act before the Appellate Authority. There is no dispute to these facts. ( 3 ) THE appeal came up for hearing before Shri R. K. Baweja. Judicial Secretary, who was the Appellate Authority under the Slum Act. The statement of Shri Gobind Saran Jalani. S/o Lala Banwari Lal Karta Firm Appellant. M/s. Nannai Mal Janki Dass was recorded on oath. The statement is in Urdu and its free translation is : "state that I have received in cash arrears of damages for use and occupation for the period up to 31-12-1967 amounting to Rs. 6. 325. The statement of Shri Gobind Saran Jalani. S/o Lala Banwari Lal Karta Firm Appellant. M/s. Nannai Mal Janki Dass was recorded on oath. The statement is in Urdu and its free translation is : "state that I have received in cash arrears of damages for use and occupation for the period up to 31-12-1967 amounting to Rs. 6. 325. 00 and have issued receipt to the respondent. I do not want to pursue the appeal and the same may be dismissed. R. O. and A. C. "the statement is also signed by late Ram Gopal as also the counsel for the parties. The order is also made in Urdu and I would do well to give it in Roman : "hasab Byan appeal basign Dastbardari khariji ki jatee hai. "the translation given by the appellant herein and the writ petitioner is : "as per the statement of relinquishment (abandonment) of the parties, the appeal is dismissed. " ( 4 ) THE owners applied again alleging change of circumstances for permission under S. 19 of the Slum Act. The petition was filed on July 21. 1980 and was registered as CAI/3066/80 and was pending before the Competent Authority (Slum ). During the pendency of the proceedings before the Competent Authority (Slums) Shri Ram Gopal died on January 8, 1983. ( 5 ) THE owners then filed on or about February 21. 1983 an execution petition against Smt. Bhagwati, widow and S/ Shri Ashok Kumar, Anil Kumar and Ajay Kumar. sons of late Ram Gopal. Shri Ashok Kumar filed objections on or about November 25. 1983 against the execution of the order of eviction under S. 25 of the Act. Smt. Manju Goel, Rent Controller. Delhi issued on December 2, 1983 warrants of possession against the legal representatives of late Ram Gopal. The bailiff could not deliver possession as the premises were found locked which fact was reported to the Court of the Rent Controller who granted permission for breaking open the locks of the premises. ( 6 ) IN the meanwhile Shri Anil Kumar, another son of late Ram Gopal filed objections under S. 25 of the Act. Shri Ashok Kumar filed a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated December 2, 1983 of Smt. Manju Goel. Rent Controller. ( 6 ) IN the meanwhile Shri Anil Kumar, another son of late Ram Gopal filed objections under S. 25 of the Act. Shri Ashok Kumar filed a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated December 2, 1983 of Smt. Manju Goel. Rent Controller. Shri Ashok Kumar also filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal under the Act against the said order dated December 2. 1983. The appeal was, however, withdrawn on January 5, 1984. Shri Ashok Kumar died on June 3. 1984 and his legal representatives were brought on record in the petition which came up for hearing before me on December. 12. 1984 when the counsel for the owners conceded that the impugned order dated December 2. 1983 be set aside. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order dated December 2. 1983. The learned Rent Controller was directed to determine the objections expeditiously and thereafter on its fate. issue or not issue, the warrants of possession. ( 7 ) SHRI J. M. Malik who succeeded as the Rent Controller. Delhi vide his order dated August 13. 1985 determined the question of stay of the execution proceedings and the prima facie merit of the objections. He found no reason for staying the execution proceedings unnecessarily and issued the warrants of possession afresh. The owners applied for breaking open the locks of the premises. The bailiff of the Court visited on August 16, 1985 and reported about the resistance put up by the legal representatives of late Ram Gopal. In the meanwhile, Shri Anil Kumar filed an appeal u/s. 38 of the Act before the Rent Control Tribunal against the said order dated August 13, 1985 dismissing the stay application during the pendency of the objections. The Rent Control Tribunal by order dated August 28, 1985 stayed the dispossession of Anil Kumar on the condition that he submitted an undertaking before the Court that he would surrender possession of the premises to the owners if the appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal, ( 8 ) SMT. Bhagwati, widow of late Ram Gopal filed on December 18, 1985, a writ petition, being C. W. P. 3106/85 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of Shri J. M. Malik, Rent Controller, Delhi dated August 13, 1985. Bhagwati, widow of late Ram Gopal filed on December 18, 1985, a writ petition, being C. W. P. 3106/85 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of Shri J. M. Malik, Rent Controller, Delhi dated August 13, 1985. The writ petition came up for preliminary hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on December 20, 1985 when Rule Nisi was issued. The dispossession of Smt. Bhagwati was stayed. Counter-affidavits and rejoinder-affidavits have been filed in the writ petition. ( 9 ) THE appeal filed by Shri Anil Kumar against the order of Shri J. M. Malik dated August 13, 1985 was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal in the order dated January 10, 1986. The Tribunal did not find any merit in the appeal and held that the Rent Controller had rightly concluded that it is not a fit case where the execution proceedings should be stayed during the pendency of the objection petition. Shri Anil Kumar then filed second appeal against the order, being SAO 104/86. The appeal was admitted by this Court on March 21, 1986. The second appeal and the writ petition have been heard together. ( 10 ) THE first question of law urged by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner is that the decree is not executable after a period of 12 years as. prescribed under Art. 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as admittedly, the order of eviction against late Ram Gopal was obtainted on October 28, 1964 and the execution proceedings were commenced on February 21,1983. It is a fact that the order of eviction was made by the Rent Controller against late Ram Gopal on October 28, 1964 and the eviction order was confirmed in appeal on February 24, 1965 by the Rent Control Tribunal. The execution petition was in fact filed on February 21, 1983. Art. 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of limitation of 12 years for the execution of any decree other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction by order of any Civil Court. The starting point is "when the decree or order becomes enforceable. . . . . . . . Art. 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of limitation of 12 years for the execution of any decree other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction by order of any Civil Court. The starting point is "when the decree or order becomes enforceable. . . . . . . . " According to the provisions of S. 19 of the Slum Act, no eviction proceedings from any building of land in a slum area can be instituted without the previous permission in writing of the Competent Authority and no decree or order obtained in any suit instituted before such commencement for the eviction of a tenant executed unless the permission in writing of the competent authority is obtained. In other words S. 19 lays down that no decree or order of eviction of a tenant from any building in a slum area can be executed unless Competent Authority gives permission in writing. The Competent Authority refused permission on September 1, 1966 to execute the order of eviction. The owners applied afresh on July 21, 1980 and the permission was not granted till January 8, 1983 when Ram Gopal died. ( 11 ) THE legal representatives of the deceased-tenant have been brought on record in the execution case. They have been joined as representing the deceased judgment- debtor. The legal representatives are not entitled to the protection under the Slum Act. In sham Lal v. Joint Hindu Family Firm Ram Chand Siri Ram". ILR (1972) 2 Delhi 841, a Division Bench of this Court held that the protection against eviction provided in Cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of S. 19 of the Slum Act is available only to the tenant and not to his legal representatives. In Chhotey Lalv. M. S. Shammi", 1974 Ren CR 276 (Del), a learned single Judge again took the view that the legal representatives of a deceased tenant are not entitled to protection under the Slum Act. ( 12 ) THE protection was only available to the tenant who died on January 8, 1983. The order of eviction obtained on October 28, 1964 only became enforceable on January 8, 1983. The statutory bar contained in S. 19 of the Slum Act was lifted only on January 8, 1983. The decree or order for eviction became enforceable only on January 8, 1983. The order of eviction obtained on October 28, 1964 only became enforceable on January 8, 1983. The statutory bar contained in S. 19 of the Slum Act was lifted only on January 8, 1983. The decree or order for eviction became enforceable only on January 8, 1983. The execution petition filed on February 21,1983 is thus not barred by limitation. ( 13 ) IN "tehl Chand now represented by his legal heirs in Shri Das Raj v. Noor Khan", (1985) 1 Ren CR606 : (AIR1985 Delhi 470), a similar question arose before Sultan Singh, J. In that case, decree of eviction was passed against the tenant on February 19, 1960. The landlord applied for permission under the Slum Act to execute the decree but it was refused on April 2, 1962. The decree-holder in that case again applied for permission and was granted permission on May 8, 1962 under S. 19 of the Slum Act to execute the decree dated February 19, 1960. The question arose as to the period of limitation. It was held that if the decree is not enforceable, no execution lies and the period of limitation does not commence. It was held in the case that the decree became enforceable on May 8, 1981 and the period of 12 years under Art. 136 of the Limitation Act commenced from that date and not earlier. ( 14 ) I may also notice "lal Chand v. Radha Kishan", AIR 1977 SC 789 relied upon by the counsel to urge that the order of eviction becomes non est when the permission to execute the order of eviction is declined by the 2 Competent Authority. Reliance is placed on para 20 of the judgment reading as under: lal Chand s widow died after the decision of the second appeal by the High Court and before the filing of this appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent wants to utilise that event to highlight his argument that the cause of action cannot survive at least after her death, in view of the limited protection granted to the heirs of the original tenant by the amendment made to S. 2 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by Amending Act 18 of 1976. We cannot accept this argument either. We cannot accept this argument either. The suit filed by the respondent being incompetent and the Civil Court not having jurisdiction to entertain it, the decree passed by it is non est. The nullity of that decree can be set up at least by Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram who are entitled to defend and protect their possession by invoking the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act. " ( 15 ) THAT was case of a joint eviction decree against several defendants. One of the defendants died during the pendency of the appeal. It is in these circumstances that their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the eviction decree being joint and indivisible, the dismissal of the appeal in so far as the deceased was concerned, could not conceivably result in inconsistent decree being passed in the event of the appeal of the other defendants being allowed. Therefore, the first Appellate Court ought to have heard the appeal on merits and decided the question whether the provisions of the Slum Act operate as a bar to the maintainability of the suit brought. It is in those circumstances that their Lordships ruled in para 20. ( 16 ) THE next submission of the counsel is that the order of eviction dated October 28, 1964 is not executable as the owners/landlords had relinquished their right under the order of eviction when they made the statement before the Appellate Authority under the Slum Act. Reliance is heavily placed on the orders of Shri R. K. Baweja which are translated as relinquishment of the rights when the appeal is dismissed. In my view, the orders of Shri R. K. Baweja are not being properly construed and interpreted. The only statement made by the owners/landlords is that they did not want to pursue the appeal and it should be dismissed. What was pending before Shri Baweja was an appeal under S. 20 of the Slum Act against the order of the Competent Authority (Slums) dated September 1, 1986 refusing permission to execute the decree. It is permissible for an appellant to withdraw his appeal or abandon any part of the claim. All that is stated by Shri Gobind Saran is that he does not want to pursue the appeal and, therefore, it should be dismissed. Shri Baweja dismissed the appeal according to the statement. Two words used are "basiga and Dast-Bardari". It is permissible for an appellant to withdraw his appeal or abandon any part of the claim. All that is stated by Shri Gobind Saran is that he does not want to pursue the appeal and, therefore, it should be dismissed. Shri Baweja dismissed the appeal according to the statement. Two words used are "basiga and Dast-Bardari". basiga means a memorandum of deed or a settlement. The applicant having received a sum of Rs. 6,325. 00 as arrear of damages for use and occupation up to December 31, 1967 did not want to pursue the appeal. This part of the statement is also signed by late Ram Gopal to which he had agreed. This is the memorandum of the settlement to which the word basiga relates. The word dast-Bardari means the abandonment of the appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed as abandoned according to the settlement recorded in the statement. No other meaning can be attributed to the order made by Shri R. K. Baweja. There could be no question of relinquishment of rights in the decree or order of eviction dated October 28, 1964. The only jurisdiction of the Competent Authority (Slums) or the Appellate Authority is to grant or not to grant the permission to execute the decree. The rights under the decree cannot be considered by the Appellate Authority (Slums ). ( 17 ) A feeble argument is addressed that there has been a novation of tenancy by acceptance of the rent by the owners after the order of eviction obtained on October 28. 1964. No prima facie evidence was produced before the Rent Controller as to the novation of tenancy. ( 18 ) THE result of the above discussion is that C. W. P. 3106/85 and S. A. 0. 104/86 fail and are hereby dismissed with costs.