JUDGMENT 1. - Sajjan Mal was the original tenant. The landlord proceeded against him in a suit for ejectment on two grounds viz., that the shop was needed by the landlord for his personal necessity and that the tenant had sub-let the premises to Mitha Lal without permission of the landlord. In the suit there was a compromise dated 23rd April, 1982 by which Sajjan Mal ceased to be a tenant and fresh tenancy was created in favour of Mitha Lal. One of the terms of the compromise was that on 1st May, 1989 Mitha Lal will vacate the premises for the benefit of the landlord and in the meantime he will pay rent at the rate of Rs. 161/- per month. The new tenant Mitha Lal kept on paying rent and after 1.5.89 the landlord sought execution of this compromise and ejectment order against Mitha Lal. 2. Objection was raised on behalf of Mitha Lal that since Mitha Lal was a new tenant w.e.f. 23rd April, 1982, he could only be ejected on one of the grounds mentioned in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act and on the basis of a decree of ejectment passed on those grounds and not otherwise. 3. This objection prevailed with the executing court and the decree was held to be void and inexecutable as admittedly no ejectment proceedings were taken against Mittha Lal after he became a tenant on 23rd April, 1982. This view is supported by the decisions of Supreme Court in Smt. Kaushalya Devi v.K.L. Bansal, AIR 1970 SC 838 , K.K. Chari v.R.M. Seshadri, AIR 1973 SC 1311 , Nagindas Ramdas v.Dal-patram Incharam, AIR 1974 SC 471 , Roshan Lal v.Madan Lal, AIR 1975 SC 2130 and Smt. Nai Bahu v.Lala Ramnarayan, AIR 1978 SC 22 . 4. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Record of the trial court be sent back.Petition Dismissed. *******