Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the decree-holders In execution proceedings.
(2.) THE appellants obtained a decree for ejectment of the respondent on 8th January, 19*5. It was put in execution on 29th May, 1947, when the judgment debtor made an application that the amount of money ordered to be paid in the decree had been paid, and the decree-holders agreed not to dispossess him, and in that behalf a fresh agreement of tenancy had been arrived at between the parties. THE executing court rejected the objection to ejectment. THE judgment-debtor filed an appeal on 16th September, 1947. Shortly thereafter the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, bad come into force on 26th September, 1947, and in respect of the decrees obtained prior to the enforcement of the Order it was provided that the court would stay execution of the decree until the landlord produced a certificate under clause 8 of the Order from the Controller, and that if no certificate was produced within the period fixed or extended the prayer for ejectment would be disallowed, but that such an order would not operate to nullify the decree which would remain executable after the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, had been withdrawn. THE landlords obtained a certificate horn the Rent Controller, but the judgment-debtor filed an appeal to the Collector, and he set aside the order of issuing the certificate on 30th March, 1951. THE learned District Judge thereupon allowed the appeal on 16th April 1951, and ordered that the decree would not be executed in the absence of the Collector's certificate. THE decree-holders have come up in second appeal. It was contended that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, had come into force on the 23rd of December, 1950, and, therefore, the lower court was not justified in insisting on the certificate by the Rent Controller, which was required under the previous law. The Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, was repealed by the Rajasthan Premises (control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and there is specific provision in section 26 in respect of previous decrees. The Jaipur Rent Control Older, 1947, having been repealed, the lower court should have looked to the provisions of the Rajasthan Act of 1950, when a special provision had been made in the Rajasthan Act. Section 26 of the Act lays down that - "no decree for the eviction of a tenant be from any premises in areas to which this Act extends for the time being, passed before the date of commencement of this Act, shall in so far as it relates to the eviction of such tenant executed against him as long as this Act remains in force therein, except on any of the grounds mentioned in section 13, and under the circumstances specified in this Act. " Sec. 13 lays down several grounds. If the court is satisfied in respect of any one of them, it can order eviction of the tenant. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiff had applied for a certificate to the Rent Controller on the ground that he requited the premises for his own use, and that ground was not accepted by the Collector, and, therefore, he is not entitled to put up the same ground before the executing court. It the first place there are as many as 11 grounds mentioned in section 13 on which ejectment can be ordered. Even in respect of the permises being required for personal use, the present law is that it is the satis-faction of the court which will enable it to pass an order. It is, therefore, immaterial that the Rent Controller was not satisfied on an earlier occasion. Learned counsel relied on Jagjiwan Singh vs. Sita Ram (1 ). But that authority only laid down that if the same question had been agitated before the trial court, the decision would be res judicata, In the present case, it was not before the trial court that the question was agitated, and the principle of res judicata does not apply. The appeal is,, therefore, allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower court are set aside, and the case will go back to the executing court wherein the decree-holders will be allowed an opportunity to show on which of the grounds mentioned in section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, they rely in order to enable the court to execute the decree. The costs of this Court and the lower court will be costs in the cause. . ;