JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 6.2.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar in Execution Case No. 1 of 2014; Surajbhan v. Smt. Manorama Devi. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is a tenant in the property in question. In the SCC suit for arrears of rent and ejectment it is admitted by the opposite parties that UP Act No. 13 of 1972 would not be applicable, however the learned court below has proceeded to decide that the court has full jurisdiction to decide the suit as it is amenable to its jurisdiction. 4. It is submitted that the execution proceedings for execution of the decree passed by the Court below are totally wrong and cannot be allowed to continue. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarwan Kumar v. Madan Lal Aggarwal; 2003 Law Suit (SC) 160); particularly paragraph 19, which on reproduction reads as under: "19. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is accepted. The order passed by the High Court as well as the executing Court regarding the excitability of the decree passed by the Civil Court are set aside. It is held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to pass the decree for ejectment was barred. A decree passed a Court having no jurisdiction over the subject-matter would be a nullity and the judgment-debtor can object to the execution of such a decree being a nullity and non est. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced including the stage of execution of the decree or any other collateral proceedings. We are conscious of the fact that it would work a great hardship on the respondent-decree-holder who would not be able to reap the benefit of the decree passed in his favour having won at all the stages but the vagaries of law cannot be helped. Accordingly, appeal is accepted. Orders of the High Court and the executing court are set aside. It is held that the decree obtained by the decree-holder cannot be executed being a nullity and non est. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed." 6. Accordingly, appeal is accepted. Orders of the High Court and the executing court are set aside. It is held that the decree obtained by the decree-holder cannot be executed being a nullity and non est. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed." 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the records. 7. As per learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner has preferred a SCC Revision No. 419 of 2015 against the judgment and decree under execution, which has been admitted and the opposite parties have been called upon to submit their objections on the interim relief application. The revisional court has not granted any interim order till date, as such the execution proceedings are continuing. The petitioner has filed objections under Section 47 C.P.C. before the executing court, however the same are not being considered properly. 8. I am of the considered view that since the petitioner has already filed the aforesaid revision which is pending consideration before the Court concerned and an interim relief application preferred in the said revision is also pending, no interference is required by this Court in this writ petition, simply because the revision preferred by the petitioner has been admitted, it does not mean that the execution proceedings cannot be allowed to continue, the decree passed by the learned Court below is operational, as such it cannot be said that the execution proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. 9. In the case of Sarwan Kumar v. Madan Lal Aggarwal (Supra), it was held that jurisdiction of civil court to pass the decree for ejectment was barred. The Apex Court has observed that the decree passed by the Court having no jurisdiction would be a nullity and the judgment debtor can object to the execution of such a decree being a nullity and non est. 10. In the instant case, the contention of the petitioner that the learned trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for release has not yet attained finality as the revision preferred against the said judgment and decree is under challenge in the revision preferred by the petitioner which is under consideration. As such, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 11. As such, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 11. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 12. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Petitioner dismissed.