The Executing Court had issued a possession warrant on 19 April 2024, which Respondent No. 1 failed to challenge. Respondent No. 1's subsequent objections on 23 April 2024 were rejected by the Executing Court. The Appellate Bench's reversal of this decision was found erroneous and set aside. The writ petition was allowed, and the Executing Court's order was confirmed.

Background and Objections

1. Initial Objections and Conversion Information:

   • No evidence of Respondent No. 1 being informed about the conversion.
   • Objections raised by Respondent No. 1 included non-assignment of the decree, decree inexecutable under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, and speculative investment claims.

2. Executing Court Decision:

   • Executing Court rejected objections and issued a possession warrant on 19 April 2024.
   • Respondent No. 1's attempt to file an objection on 23 April 2024 was deemed an abuse of process and barred by res judicata.

Legal Principles and Precedents

3. Res Judicata Principle:

   • Issues substantially in a former suit cannot be re-agitated in subsequent proceedings (Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur vs. Ashok Kumar).

4. Jurisdiction and Execution:

   • Respondent No. 1 did not claim service tenancy initially and was deemed a mere licensee.
   • Objection regarding jurisdiction was barred by constructive res judicata.
   • Supreme Court's stance in Rafique Bibi vs. Sayed Waliuddin on executing court's inability to go behind the decree.

Appellate Bench Decision and Reversal

5. Erroneous Reversal by Appellate Bench:
   • Appellate Bench reversed the Executing Court's order on erroneous grounds.
   • The decision to set aside the Executing Court's order was found unjustified.

Specific Court Orders and Procedures

6. Executing Court's Rejection of Stay Application:

   • Executing Court rejected stay application on 23 April 2024, emphasizing that the process of objection had been completed.

7. Provisions and Legal Texts:

   • Rules 22 and 23 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure discussed, highlighting the completion of the objection process.

Judgments and Legal Interpretations

8. Judgments Cited:

   • Analysis of relevant judgments including Harshad Chiman Lal Modi, Ravinder Kaur, Rafiq Bibi, and Chandrashekar Manohar Tanksale.

9. Jurisdictional Objections:

   • Debate on the permissibility of raising jurisdictional objections under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

Conclusion and Final Orders

10. Final Ruling:

    • The Appellate Bench's order dated 6 May 2024 set aside.
    • Executing Court's order dated 23 April 2024 confirmed.
    • Writ Petition allowed with no order as to costs.

11. Post-Judgment Request for Stay:

    • Request for stay of judgment for 8 weeks by Respondent No. 1's counsel was rejected.