ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned advocate for the parties and perused the record. 2. Rule, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioners challenge the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Senior Division to entertain the proceedings for execution of a decree for eviction passed under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereafter called as "the said Act". The contention of the petitioners is that in view of the provisions of law contained in section 28 of the said Act, the competent court to deal with the suit as well as execution proceedings in relation to the matter arising under the said Act, is the Civil Judge, Junior Division outside the territorial limits of Greater Bombay and in the case in hand, the taluka, wherein the suit premises are situated, being provided with the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, the proceedings for execution of eviction decree could not have been entertained and proceeded with by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Ahmednagar. 4. Undisputedly, pursuant to the decree of eviction of the petitioners having obtained, the respondent filed execution proceedings in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Ahmednagar. On service of notice thereof, the petitioners raised various objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the objections was regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Judge, Senior Division, to proceed with matter. A bare perusal of the orders passed by the Courts below disclose that both the courts proceeded to dispose of the application under section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, without properly addressing to the issue of jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the execution proceedings relating to the eviction decree under the said Act. 5. A bare perusal of the orders passed by the Courts below disclose that both the courts proceeded to dispose of the application under section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, without properly addressing to the issue of jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the execution proceedings relating to the eviction decree under the said Act. 5. Section 28(1) of the said Act provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in any law and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim or for other reason, the suit or proceeding would not, but for the said provisions, be within its jurisdiction, (a) in Greater Bombay, the Court of Small Causes Bombay, (aa) in any area for which, a Court of Small Causes is established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, such court and (b) elsewhere, the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situate and if there is no such Civil Judge, the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction, shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between the landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which the provisions of said Act apply and to decide any application made under the said Act and to deal with any claim or question arising out of the said Act or any of its provisions and no other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit, proceeding or application and to deal with such claim or question. Further, section 31 of the said Act, provides that the Court specified in sections 28 and 29 shall follow the prescribed procedure in trying and hearing such proceedings, applications and appeals and the executing orders made by them. 6. Bare reading of section 28 with section 31 of the said Act would reveal that when a taluka is provided with the facility of the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, then all the disputes pertaining to recovery of rent or possession of the premises from the tenant and situated within the territorial limits of such taluka, and under the said Act are required to be adjudicated in such Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division in the taluka, and no other court can deal with such matters. Such adjudication is not restricted to the suits, but would include all other proceedings in such suits as well as in respect of execution of orders passed in the suits and other proceedings in such suits. Though the expression "execution proceedings" has not been specifically used in section 28, the fact that the provisions of law relating to jurisdiction of the Courts specified under section 28 also applies to the execution proceedings is clear from Sec.31 of the said Act. The said section 31 specifically requires to follow prescribed procedure by the specified courts under section 28 in the matter of hearing of suits as well as in executing orders passed therein. Thus, it is apparently clear that it is the Civil Judge, Junior Division of the concerned taluka having jurisdiction over the area, who is the specified court to deal with the suits and execution proceedings relating to the claim of recovery of rent and possession of tenanted premises situated within its jurisdiction and area, under the said Act. 7. Apparently, therefore, the decrees which have been passed under the said Act can be executed only through the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, unless the area, in which the premises are situate, does not have the facility of the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division. Needless to say that in case of absence of the provision for Civil Judge, Junior Division in the taluka, certainly Civil Judge, Senior Division, would be competent to entertain and deal with similar suit and execution proceedings. 8. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent that the proceedings before the court below were allotted to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, on administrative ground. When the statutory provision specifically prescribes the authority to deal with the matter, the administrative exigencies cannot be an excuse to by-pass the statutory provisions. 9. In the case in hand, undisputedly, there is a court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, for the area in which the suit premises are situated and, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent to institute the execution proceedings in the said court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, and not in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. 9. In the case in hand, undisputedly, there is a court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, for the area in which the suit premises are situated and, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent to institute the execution proceedings in the said court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, and not in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. Both the Courts below have proceeded to decide the matter, without proper application of mind to the fact and the law applicable thereto in relation to the subject of jurisdiction and thus have acted improperly in exercise of their jurisdiction warranting interference of this court in writ jurisdiction and setting aside all the proceedings and remanding the matter to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ahmednagar to deal with the application for execution filed by the respondent afresh. All the proceedings recorded in the execution proceedings pursuant to the filing thereof from the date of service of notice upon the petitioners, till this date, are hereby quashed and set aside. The Civil Judge, Junior Division Ahmednagar, shall proceed with the said execution proceedings afresh. All the points and contentions sought to be raised by the parties, either on the merits or otherwise, are kept open. 10. With the above observations, the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded, as stated above. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. 11. Certified Copy is expedited. Rule made absolute.