As per case facts, a landlord obtained an ex-parte ejectment decree from a civil court against the legal heirs of a deceased commercial tenant for premises in Delhi. The civil ... court had ruled that the tenancy was not heritable and ended upon the original tenant's death. The judgment-debtors' attempts to set aside the ex-parte decree and appeals failed. During execution, they objected, arguing the civil court lacked inherent jurisdiction because commercial tenancies in Delhi are heritable under the Delhi Rent Control Act, as later clarified by the Supreme Court in Gian Devi Anand's case. The question arose whether an ejectment decree passed by a civil court before the Supreme Court's declaration that commercial tenancies are heritable is executable, or if judgment-debtors can successfully object to its execution on grounds of the court lacking inherent jurisdiction. Finally, the Supreme Court held that a civil court inherently lacked jurisdiction to pass such an ejectment decree for premises governed by the Rent Act. The Court clarified that its interpretation of the law was retrospective, meaning the law always considered commercial tenancies heritable. Thus, the original decree was deemed a nullity and inexecutable, allowing the judgment-debtors to successfully object to its execution. The appeal was allowed, and the decree set aside.