Judgment : S.K. Mishra, J. The petitioner being the decree holder in E.P. No.2 of 1999 of the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi assails the order dated 30.07.2005 passed in the aforesaid case dismissing the execution proceeding. 2. Facts of the case, which lead to filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner being a deity is represented by its Managing Trustee i.e. Mahanta Narottam Das, who is the disciple of Late Mahanta Bijay Krushna Das, according to the petitioner was the sole Managing Trustee of the properties of the deity. 3. One Ogadhu Padhi was the absolute owner in possession of a building premises bearing assessment No.386/13 situated at Market Road in Municipal Ward No.13 in the town of Parlakhemundi. Vide Lease Deed Dated 01.03.1965, Ogadhu Padhi inducted opposite party no.1 as a tenant in respect of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.80/-. Consequent upon the death of the said Ogadhu, his properties devolved upon his widow, Dhanomani as they had no issue, but a fostered son, Gopinath and the tenant opposite party attorned to Dhanomani and executed a Lease Deed dated 01.06.1966 agreeing to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.80/-per month for eleven months and at the rate of Rs.100/-per month in case of renewal of the lease deed after the stipulated period. 4. In the year 1967, there was an amicable partition of the properties left behind by the said Ogadhu including the suit property vide a registered partition deed dated 03.04.1967 between the said Dhanomani and the fostered son Gopinath, wherein the suit property fell to the share of Gopinath. After such partition, Gopinath sold the suit property to Dhanomani for consideration, vide Regd. Sale Deed No.1779/67 dated 29.06.1967, consequent whereupon Dhanomani became absolute owner of the suit property along with other properties that fall to her share in the aforesaid partition. Dhanomani executed a Regd. Willnama bearing Document No.16/67 dated 24.07.1967 bequeathing all her immovable properties including the suit property in favour of the petitioner Deity, who was installed by Dhanomani at her house, and appointed Board of Trustees for management of the Trust properties and as such, the petitioner deity became landlord of the suit property w.e.f. 24.07.1967. Thereafter, the opposite party recognized the Deity as landlord and paid a sum of Rs.300/-towards rent. 5. Thereafter, the opposite party recognized the Deity as landlord and paid a sum of Rs.300/-towards rent. 5. At this juncture, opposite party no.1 stopped payment of monthly rent to the petitioner and in violation of the terms of the contract, sub-let the suit premises to other two persons, i.e. opposite party no.2 and another. After due statutory notice issued to the opposite party to vacate the suit premises and to pay the arrear rent, when opposite party no.1 failed to comply with the said notice, the petitioner represented through its Managing Trustee, Mahanta Bijay Krushna Das filed an eviction proceeding under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1951, hereinafter referred as the “Act” for brevity, against the opposite party and the aforesaid two sub-tenants in the court of the S.D.J.M.-cum-House Rent Controller, Paralakhemundi and was numbered as H.R.C. Case No.1 of 1989. In that eviction proceeding, the petitioner-Deity sought eviction of opposite party no.1 and two sub-tenants on the grounds of non-payment of monthly rent, sub-letting the tenanted premises without consent of the landlord and bona fide requirement of the landlord. 6. Opposite party no.1 contested the eviction proceeding alleging that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner deity contending that he has entered into an agreement for sale dated 13.03.1966 with Gopinath and in pursuance thereof, he purchased the suit property vide Regd. Sale Deed dated 30.08.1983 executed by Gopinath and as such the opposite party claimed ownership over the suit property. However, the learned House Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the eviction proceeding vide judgment dated 18.02.1989. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned C.J.M.-cum-House Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ganjam, Berhampur in H.R.C. Appeal No.26 of 1989 and the Appellate Court by its order dated 08.02.1990 allowed the appeal on contest against respondent no.1 and ex parte against respondents 2 and 3, set aside the judgment and order dated 18.08.1989 passed by the trial court and directed for eviction of the tenant-respondent and two sub-tenants from the premises. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.02.1990, the opposite party assailed the legality of the same before this Court in a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No.1046 of 1990. This Court on 17.01.1997 dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.02.1990, the opposite party assailed the legality of the same before this Court in a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No.1046 of 1990. This Court on 17.01.1997 dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9879 of 1997, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.1997. 8. Consequent upon the decree of eviction passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner filed an execution proceeding for execution of the decree of eviction against opposite party no.1 and the sub-tenants in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paralakhemundi, which was registered as E.P.No.13 of 1990. During the pendency of the aforesaid execution proceeding, Mahanta Bijay Krushna Das died on 11.04.1991, for which the present Managing Trustee, Mahanta Narottam Das, being appointed as such as per the Willnama executed by Late Mahanta Bijay Krushna Das, was substituted vide Order dated 02.09.1997 passed by the executing court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paralakhemundi. 9. As the matter stood thus, on an objection filed by the opposite party, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi vide order dated 22.02.1999 rejected the Execution Proceeding holding that in view of Section 15 of the Act (since repealed), which stipulated that the Execution Proceeding can be entertained by the concerned Munsif, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is not the executing court. The petitioner challenged the order of rejection of the execution proceeding before this Court in C.R. No.101 of 1999, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.09.1999, setting aside the order of rejection with a direction to transfer the Execution Proceeding to the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Parlakhemundi for execution of the decree for eviction and consequent thereupon, the proceeding was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Parlakhemundi and was registered as E.P. No. 2 of 1999. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.1999, the opposite party assailed the legality of the order before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.90 of 2000, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2000. 10. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.1999, the opposite party assailed the legality of the order before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.90 of 2000, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2000. 10. During the pendency of the Execution Proceeding, the second sub-tenant died and abandoned his occupation in respect of the suit property and therefore, by order dated 24.11.1999, the Execution Proceeding was withdrawn against him and the first sub-tenant satisfied the decree by handing over the possession to the present opposite party. It is stated by the petitioner that as the matter stood thus, some local people in order to grab the properties of the Deity approached the local Inspector of Endowment and without the knowledge of the petitioner, the Inspector of Endowment constituted a Non-hereditary Trust Board, comprising of nine members in purported exercise of power under Section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, which was communicated to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Endowments vide Memo No.156 dated 03.01.1997. 11. In view of the above, the petitioner filed an application under Section 41 (b) and (c) of the Act before the Addl. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments at Berhampur praying inter alia for declaring the Deity a private deity and other consequential reliefs in O.A. No.3 of 1997. The application was dismissed by virtue of the order dated 16.03.2001 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 44 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar, which was registered as F.A. No.3 of 2001. Vide judgment dated 29.03.2005, the aforesaid Appeal has been dismissed and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has assailed the legality of the same before this Court in M.S.A. No.6 of 2005 and vide order dated 10.06.2005, this Court has issued notice of the Appeal to the respondents. 12. The petitioner claimed that the Management has been all along with the present Managing Trustee, Mahanta Narottam Das and charge of the same has never been handed over to anybody under directions of the Endowments Authorities. As the learned Executing Court vide order dated 30.07.2005 dismissed the Execution Proceeding, such order is assailed in this writ petition. It is contended by the petitioner that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested with it and, therefore, the order dated 30.07.2005 is liable to be quashed. As the learned Executing Court vide order dated 30.07.2005 dismissed the Execution Proceeding, such order is assailed in this writ petition. It is contended by the petitioner that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested with it and, therefore, the order dated 30.07.2005 is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the executing court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree being sought to be executed when the same was passed by a court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and more so, the decree has been confirmed by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. The petitioner further states that the learned court below has committed gross error by not taking into consideration that the present Managing Trustee was substituted by the order of the Court and at no point of time his locus standi was ever challenged by the judgment debtor and more so he has been pursuing the litigation before different courts and authorities as Managing Trustee of the petitioner deity and more particularly when he was chosen to be impleaded as party in writ petition bearing O.J.C. No.1046 of 1990 before this Court after the death of late Mahanta Bijaya Krushna Das being the latter’s disciple by none other than judgment debtor himself, the assumption of the learned court below regarding locus standi of the petitioner’s Managing Trustee is absolutely vague and based on no material on records inasmuch as perverse. 13. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.1 during the pendency of the writ application. Opposite parties 3 to 6 have filed an application to be impleaded in the writ petition. That petition has been allowed and therefore, opposite parties 3 to 6 have filed counter affidavit challenging inter alia the locus standi of Mahanta Narottama Das representing the deity. According to them, as per the order of the authorities under the Act of 1951, a Managing Trust Board has been newly constituted and they can only file an application for eviction of the opposite party no.1 from the suit premises. 14. In this case, the following questions arise for determination: (i) Whether the present petitioner representing Mahanta Narottam Das can seek execution of the decree passed by the House Rent Control Authorities ? 14. In this case, the following questions arise for determination: (i) Whether the present petitioner representing Mahanta Narottam Das can seek execution of the decree passed by the House Rent Control Authorities ? (ii) Whether, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi amounted to not exercising the jurisdiction vested with him ? 15. The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity or otherwise not unexecutable. It is the duty of the executing court to execute the decree. In this case, the directions have been passed by the H.R.C. Appellate Authority under the Act, which has been confirmed by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court, has to be executed. Any findings given by the authorities under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, will not be germane for the purpose of executing the decree. The Judgment-Debtor cannot take a plea that the petitioner-Deity cannot be represented by the Mahanta, as such a plea has never been taken by the Judgment-Debtor in the proceedings under the Act. In that view of the matter, the executing court has to hold that such a point has already been set at rest and the findings recorded by the authorities under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act will not render the directions passed by the appellate authority a nullity. In that view of the matter, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner, being represented by Mahanta Narottam Das, can execute the directions passed by the House Rent Control Authorities. 16. As far as the second question is concerned, it is the duty of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paralakhemundi to execute the direction and since he has not executed the direction and passed orders for dismissal of the execution proceedings, it has amounted to “not exercising jurisdiction vested with the court.” In that view of the matter, the powers conferred by the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be invoked and the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the execution proceeding has to be re-written. 17. Therefore, it is ordered that the Execution Proceeding is maintainable and the order impugned is set aside. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi is directed to proceed with the execution case as per the procedure established by law. 17. Therefore, it is ordered that the Execution Proceeding is maintainable and the order impugned is set aside. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi is directed to proceed with the execution case as per the procedure established by law. With such observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the pending Misc. Case is also disposed of as infructuous. The parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 11.12.2013. Petition disposed of.