R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) ). THE petitioner is original a defendant-tenant. The respondent had filed a suit for possession against the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. In that suit a consent decree came to be passed and it provided that the defendant (the present respondent) do pay a sum of Rs. 400. 00 towards arrears of rent and that he shall pay regularly every month from 1-12-1979 monthly rent of Rs. 41 ps. The consent decree further provided that if the defendant (the present petitioner) neglected to pay the rent for any one month or on the first of the month the plaintiff-Trust would be entitled to take possession of the shop through Court. On such default in payment of the rent for November 1981 Execution Application was filed on 18 in that Execution Application the present petitioner raised an objection that this kind of decree for possession was illegal and-without jurisdiction. There is no dispute that rent upto October 1981 has been paid. There is no dispute that there is no immediate decree for possession. In fact there is no existing cause of action for passing the decree for possession in terms of the consent terms. The only provision which is made in the decree is that in case of default in payment of rent the plaintiff would be entitled to take possession through Court. That can only mean that the plaintiff can file a fresh suit for possession which will be decided in accordance with law and this term in the decree cannot mean that this part of the decree is executable on happening of some contingency in future. That kind of decree will be absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence this Revision Application is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 27-9-1982 in Execution Application No. 47/81 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Visavadar is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. .