JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 15th October, 2008 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the House Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Saraikella in Execution Case no.4 of 2004, whereby though the said authority directed the respondent no.7-Falaria Officer, Falaria Control Unit, Jamshedpur Office, Saraikella to make payment of rent of Rs.2,73,342.80, yet declined to pass any order on the point of interest to be paid to the petitioner in terms with the agreement. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the State respondents preferably the respondent no.2 to ensure the payment of arrears of rent in favour of the petitioner which has not been paid despite different orders passed in fair rent fixation case. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the mother of the petitioner and the respondent no.7 had entered into an unregistered agreement on 2nd January, 1982 to lease out the premises, known as Gayatri Bhawan, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. The said agreement was extended on 5th November, 1993 till alternative arrangement of the premises was made by the respondent no.7. The fair rent of the said premises was determined thrice by the respondent no.6- House Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Saraikella. The first determination was made vide Order no.1653 dated 30th June, 1982 determining the rent @ Rs.1347/- per month, second determination vide Order no.610 dated 8th February, 1991 fixing rent @ Rs.2020/- per month and third determination vide Order no.229 dated 28th May, 2002 fixing rent @ Rs.6000/- per month with effect from 24th August, 2001, which continued till filing of the present writ petition. On the applications of the mother of the petitioner seeking payment of due rent, the respondent no.6 passed Order No.1235 dated 18th October, 1993 in BBRC Case No.1 of 1993; Order No.885 dated 23rd October, 1999 in BBRC Case No.3 of 1999; and Order No.60 dated 4th June, 2004 in BBRC Case no.1 of 2003, directing the respondent no.7 to pay fair rent without any further delay. The mother of the petitioner, namely, Gayatri Devi filed Execution Case no.4 of 2004 for payment of Rs.21,17,786/- as rent from 1981-82 to 2007-08, however, the same was kept pending, compelling her to file a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.2510 of 2007, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 3rd October, 2007 with a direction to the respondent no.6 to dispose of the said execution case without any further delay preferably within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, another writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.3833 of 2010 was filed by the father of the petitioner, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18th November, 2010. Subsequently, Execution Case no.4 of 2004 was disposed of by the respondent no.6 with a direction to the respondent no.7 to pay Rs.2,73,342.80 to the petitioner on account of due amount of rent of the premises in question. However, the claim of additional amount i.e. interest over the due amount of rent was denied by the respondent no.6 by observing that the said demand has not been determined by any competent court of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner is the actual owner of the premises in question, who executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner to take care of the rent relating to the premises in question. It is further submitted that the court below has passed the impugned order without any application of mind that too contrary to the earlier orders passed, the copies of which have been annexed as Annexure-4 series to the writ petition. The respondent no.6 has committed serious error in calculating the rent and thus deprived the petitioner of the lawful rent to be paid by the respondent no.7. It was mutually agreed between the mother of the petitioner and the respondent no.7 that in case of failure of the respondent no.7 in clearing entire arrear of monthly rent in time, the petitioner would be entitled to get comprehensive rent by adding 2% extra per month for such default of non-payment of rent till the date of actual payment. 4. 4. Learned A.C. to G.P.II, while relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5, submits that the mother as well as father of the petitioner had earlier filed two writ petitions for the same and similar relief and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the agreement between the mother of the petitioner and the respondent no.7 was not a registered one and as such the same is neither enforceable by a Court of law nor any right arising therefrom accrues to the petitioner. No determination has been made in favour of the petitioner in the order dated 04.06.2004 so as to make him entitled to get extra 2% interest per month over the fair rent, rather the competent authority has simply directed the respondent no.7 to pay the due amount of rent to the petitioner. There being no determination on the point of interest, the petitioner is not entitled for the same. As such, the respondent no.6 has rightly held in the impugned order that the interest part of the agreement cannot be awarded as the same has not been determined by any competent court of law. It is, however, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,73,342.80 as fair rent as per the order dated 15th October, 2008. The answering respondent vide letter no.11 dated 7th February, 2011 has requested the Principal Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand to release the fund. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The petitioner has brought on record three orders passed by the respondent no.6 directing the respondent no.7 to pay the fair rent to the petitioner. The latest order was passed in BBRC Case No.1 of 2003 on 4th June, 2004, in pursuance of which Execution Case No.4 of 2004 was filed. On bare perusal of the order dated 4th June, 2004 passed in BBRC Case No.1 of 2003, it would be evident that the respondent no.6 had directed the respondent no.7 to pay the due rent within a period of three months. The Executing Court came to a finding that the rent of the premises in question was Rs.6,45,242.80 and the respondent no.7 had already paid Rs.3,71,900/- to the owner of the premises which is an admitted position. The Executing Court came to a finding that the rent of the premises in question was Rs.6,45,242.80 and the respondent no.7 had already paid Rs.3,71,900/- to the owner of the premises which is an admitted position. As such, Rs.2,73,342.80 was found due to be paid by the respondent no.7 to the petitioner. 6. The thrust of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below (the Executing Court) has committed error in not calculating the interest @ 2% per month in the execution proceeding as was provided in the agreement. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Krishan Dayal Sharma, reported in (2011)11 SCC 212, would be relevant, wherein it has been held as under: “8. The right of the decree-holder to obtain relief is determined in accordance with the terms of the decree. The executing court has referred to a number of decisions where interest had been granted on the arrears of salary and pension. The executing court failed to appreciate that in those decisions direction for payment of interest had been issued by the court while granting relief for reinstatement or payment of arrears of salary or pension. None of those decisions relate to the grant of interest by the executing court. No doubt the courts have power to award interest on the arrears of salary or pension or other amounts to which a government servant is found entitled having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case but that power cannot be exercised by the executing court in the absence of any direction in the decree.” Further in the case of Rameshwar Dass Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (1996)5 SCC 728 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “4. It is a well-settled legal position that an executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. It gets jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 21 CPC. In view of the fact that it is a money claim, what was to be computed is the arrears of the salary, gratuity and pension after computation of his promotional benefits in accordance with the service law. It gets jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 21 CPC. In view of the fact that it is a money claim, what was to be computed is the arrears of the salary, gratuity and pension after computation of his promotional benefits in accordance with the service law. That having been done and the court having decided the entitlement of the decree-holder in a sum of Rs 1,97,000 and odd, the question that arises is whether the executing court could step out and grant a decree for interest which was not part of the decree for execution on the ground of delay in payment or for unreasonable stand taken in execution? In our view, the executing court has exceeded its jurisdiction and the order is one without jurisdiction and is thereby a void order. It is true that the High Court normally exercises its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC but once it is held that the executing court has exceeded its jurisdiction, it is but the duty of the High Court to correct the same. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court in interfering with and setting aside the order directing payment of interest.” 7. It is, thus, well settled that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. As such, if no interest was awarded in the original judgment/decree, the same cannot be allowed by the Executing Court. The respondent no.6 as the Rent Controller has not passed any order with regard to payment of interest to the owner of the premises and as such the same has rightly been denied to the petitioner’s mother. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent no.6 as the Rent controller. I, therefore, find no illegality in the impugned order dated 15th October, 2008 passed by the respondent no.6 in Execution Case No.4 of 2004 so as to warrant any interference. 8. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent no.6 as the Rent controller. I, therefore, find no illegality in the impugned order dated 15th October, 2008 passed by the respondent no.6 in Execution Case No.4 of 2004 so as to warrant any interference. 8. However, since it appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 that till filing of the same, the admitted amount of Rs.2,73.342.80 towards rent determined by the respondent no.6 was not paid to the mother of the petitioner, the respondent no.7 is directed to pay the same along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 6th January, 2011 till the date of actual payment within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.