JUDGMENT : 1. The judgment debtor petitioner has filed this petition under section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 23.3.1996 passed by Shri Ummaid Singh Solanki, Civil Judge (S.D.), Phalodi in execution case No. 3196 whereby petitioner judgment debtor's objections regarding the executability of the decree were rejected. 2. The facts leading to the present petition, stated succinctly, are as follows: Non-petitioner respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner in one Balkishan on the footing of a rent note executed by non-petitioner No. 2 in favour of non-petitioner No. 1 in respect of the suit premises. The plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 inter alia, sought ejectment of the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground that Balkishan non-petitioner No. 2 sub-let the suit premises to Bhagirath in violation of the condition of the tenancy. Both the defendants contested the suit. The petitioner as defendant No. 1 denied the tenancy and alleged that the defendant No. 2 petitioner Bhagirath was in possession of the suit premises as tenant of the plaintiff. The default in payment of rent was also denied. It would be pertinent to refer to the issues framed by the learned Munsiff in the above suit. (a) Whether defendant No. 1 took the suit premises on rent from the plaintiff on 16.2.1970 at the monthly rent of Rs. 30/- and executed a rent note in favour of the latter on 15.4.1970 ? (b) Whether the rent of the above shop was enhanced from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 44/- with effect from Kartik Sud Ekam Samwat 2033 and whether defendant No. 1 paid rent thereafter at the above rate ? (c) Whether the defendant No. 1 sublet the suit shop to defendant No. 2? d) Whether the defendant No. 1 committed defaults for a period of more than six months prior to the institution of the suit and as such defendant No. 1 has become a defaulter ? (e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 1476/- from defendant No. 1 ? (f) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of non-compliance of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. ? (g) Whether eviction is possible ? (e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 1476/- from defendant No. 1 ? (f) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of non-compliance of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. ? (g) Whether eviction is possible ? (i) Whether defendant No. 2 only took the suit shop from the plaintiff and the rent note is only benami ? (ii) Whether defendant No. 2 is the tenant of the plaintiff ? (h) Relief. 3. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff against both the defendants. Under issue No. 3, the learned Civil judge held that defendant No. 1 sublet the shop to defendant No. 2. Under issues Nos. 7 and 8, the learned Civil Judge held that since defendant No. 1 sublet the suit shop to defendant No. 2 without the consent of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of eviction on the ground enumerated in Section 13(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 4. When the plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 filed application for execution of the above decree, the same was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the decree A passed by the learned Civil Judge was a nullity in the eye of law inasmuch as the learned Civil Judge did not find the ground mentioned in Section 13(1)(e) of the Act fulfilled by the plaintiff. The provisions of Section 13 of the Act interdict the Court from passing any decree or making any order in favour of a landlord whether in execution of decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant unless one of the grounds mentioned in Section 13 is proved in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. In the instant, case a perusal of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge eloquently shows that the plaintiff did not allege that defendant No. 1 sublet the suit shop to defendant No.2 with his consent. Though the averment of subletting was made. The relevant issues framed by the Court is issue No.3, but it does not reflect the mandate of Clause (e) of Section 13 of he Act He submitted that defendant No. 1 non-petitioner No. 2 has sublet suit shop to him. Only subletting is not a ground for eviction. According to Clause (e), the subletting should be without the consent of the landlord. Only subletting is not a ground for eviction. According to Clause (e), the subletting should be without the consent of the landlord. In the present case, the landlord did not make any specific averment that defendant No. 1 sublet the shop to defendant No. 2 without his consent. Only a general averment of subletting have been made and issues has, also been framed on the same ground. The learned Civil Judge has therefore, not recorded finding which can correspond to Clause (e) of Section 13(1) of the Act. He has relied on Sunder Das v. Ram Prakash, AIR 1977 SC 1201 , Roshanlal v. Madanlal, (1975) 2 SCC 785 : AIR 1975 SC 2130 and Siba Pada Rai v. Sudhangsu Kumar Singh, AIR 1980 Cal. 90 and Nand Bala Daisy v. B.B. Mukherjee . 5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I may refer to the case law cited by the learned counsel. In AIR 1977 SC 1201 , the landlord obtained a decree against the tenant, but, in the meantime a proviso in Section 3 Delhi Rent Control Act with retrospective effect was added. It was also held that since the proviso was introduced with respective effect it must be deemed to be part of Section 3 since the time the Delhi Rent Control Act was enacted. Therefore, by virtue of the said proviso, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1950 were held applicable to the tenancy of the tenant for the premises though belonging to the Govt., were lawfully let out by A to B and the condition of the proviso was specific. Hence, the civil Court had no inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the decree so passed was a nullity. The Executing Court though generally not authorised to go beyond the decree can in such a situation examine the question of nullity of the decree. 6. In Siba Pada Rai's case, AIR 1980 Calcutta 90 analogous provisions like Section 13 of the Act exist. It was in that reference that it was held that Section 13(1) prohibited the Court from passing an order or decree for recovery of possession in favour of the landlord against the tenant unless the Court was satisfied about the existence of any one or more grounds referred to existed. It was in that reference that it was held that Section 13(1) prohibited the Court from passing an order or decree for recovery of possession in favour of the landlord against the tenant unless the Court was satisfied about the existence of any one or more grounds referred to existed. Hence, where the decree was without incorporating any adjudication of the existence of any of the clauses of Section 13(1) of the Act, the decree was held to be a nullity. In Roshan Lal's case, AIR 1975 SC 2130 the eviction decree was passed on compromise between the parties. It was held that when the tenancy is governed by any Rent Restriction or Eviction Control Act, the suitor must make out a case for eviction in accordance with the provisions of the Act. When the compromise does not contain compliance of the requirement of such Rent Control Resolution, the decree cannot be executed and cannot be said to have been passed in accordance with law. 7. In Nand Bala Daisy's case,  the same view was taken. 8. Now the important question for determination in this case is whether while decreeing the suit the learned Civil Judge held the ground containing clause (e) of Section 13(1) against the petitioner. If it held that finding base on Clause (e) of Section 13(1) has been recorded, the decree can be said to have been passed without violating the embargo placed by Section 13 of the Act. 9. While narrating the facts, I have already stated that the plaintiff in the above suit averred that he admitted defendant No. 1 to tenancy in respect of the suit shop and the latter executed a rent note in his favour. Then he, inter alia, stated that the defendant No. 1 has sublet the suit shop to defendant No. 2. issue No. 3 was framed on the basis of such material averments. The important thing to be mentioned in this connection is that the learned Civil Judge while deciding issue No. 1 held affirmatively that defendant No. 1 sublet the suit shop to defendant No. 2. In this connection I may refer to the observations made by the learned Civil Judge while deciding issues 7 and 8. The important thing to be mentioned in this connection is that the learned Civil Judge while deciding issue No. 1 held affirmatively that defendant No. 1 sublet the suit shop to defendant No. 2. In this connection I may refer to the observations made by the learned Civil Judge while deciding issues 7 and 8. From the above, it is clear that the learned Civil Judge categorically recorded the finding that the defendant No. 1 sublet the suit shop to defendant No. 2 without the consent of the plaintiff and thereby defendant No. 2 incurred the liability in accordance with the Clause (e) of Section 13(1) of the Act. In this revision petition I am not inclined to question the propriety or otherwise of recording such a finding. The fact is that the finding in terms of Clause (e) of Section 13(1) has been recorded by the learned Civil Judge on which basis the eviction decree has been passed against the petitioner defendant. Hence, the embargo placed by Section 13(1) of the Act is not found here. There can be dispute that Section 13(1) of the Act prohibits the Court from passing an order or decree for recovery of possession in favour of the landlord against the tenant unless the Court was satisfied about the existence of any or more grounds referred to in Clause (a) to (h) of sub- section (11 of Section 13 of the Act. In other words, it may very well be said that unless the landlord succeeds in proving the existence of any one of the grounds referred to above the Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order or decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises in favour of the landlord against the tenant. In the instant case, the only ground of eviction held against the petitioner defendant No. 2 was the unauthorised subletting by defendant No. 1 to him. 10. For the above reasons I find no substance in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed.