The main legal point established in the judgment is that the heirs of a statutory tenant in occupation of a commercial premises are entitled to the same protection against eviction as afforded to tenants under the Rent Control Act, as established by the Supreme Court in Gian Devi v. Jeevan Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 796.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the judgement-debtors against the order dated 24-3-1984 passed by the Munsiff, Chintamani, in Execution No. 16 of 1984 dismissing I. A. No. 3 filed by the judgement-debtors under O. 21, R. 29 C. P. C.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of understanding the case, it is necessary to find out the facts leading to the filing of the execution petition and the filing of I. A. No. 3. The respondent in the present revision is the decree-holder. The present revision petitioners are the judgement-debtors.

( 3 ) THE parties have been referred to with reference to their position in the executing Court.

( 4 ) THE decree-holder filed a petition under S. 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, in H. R. C. No. 28/77 against Vishwanathaiah Setty, the father of the present judgement-debtors. The said H. R. C. case was resisted by the judgement-debtors' father Vishwanathaiah Setty. Ultimately an order of eviction was passed in the said H. R. C case on 5-9-1980. Vishwanathaiah Setty being aggrieved by the order of eviction approached the District Judge, Kolar, with H. R. C. revision No. 63/80. During the pendency of the said revision in the District Court, the judgement debtors' father Vishwanathaiah Setty who had filed the said revision, passed away. The present judgement-debtors filed I. A. No. 5 in the said H. R. C. revision pending on the file of the District Judge, alleging that they were the L. Rs. of the deceased Vishwanathaiah Setty and also that the tenancy in question was not the individual or personal tenancy of Vishwanathaiah Setty and that the firm was the tenant of which the present judgement debtors were also the partners along with Vishwanathaiah Setty. The District Judge appears to have negatived in the said H. R. C. revision the contention of the judgement debtors that the tenancy was of the firm. He took also the view that even though the judgement-debtors are the legal representatives of Vishwanathaiah Setty, they had no right to contest the revision petition. But, however, he allowed the present judgement-debtors to come on record as the legal representatives of Vishwanathaiah Setty who was the tenant in the said H. R. C. case. The District Judge dismissed the revision on the ground that the legal representatives of the tenant in occupation of a non-residential premises were not entitled to contest the application. The said view taken by the District Judge was based on the various decisions of this Court. Taking that view the District Judge dismissed the H. R. C. revision No. 63/80. The present judgement-debtors being aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Judge in H. R. C. revision No. 63/80, approached this Court with C. R. P. No. 4124 of 1983 and it was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter the decree-holder sued out the execution in Execution No. 16/84 against the present judgement-debtors in order to execute the eviction order which had become final, and sought for delivery of possession from the judgement-debtors. The execution petition was filed on 15-3-1984. Thereafter the judgement-debtors filed O. S. No. 48/84 against the present decree-holder on 19-3-1984 seeking the following reliefs :"for a declaration declaring that the plaintiff's partnership company is the tenant in respect of the schedule shop premises, under the defendant; (b) for declaring that the order of eviction passed in H. R. C. No. 28/1977 by the Munsiff, Chintamani, against Sri T. Vishwanathaiah Setty in his individual capacity is not binding on the plaintiff's firm; (c) for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff's firm, on the basis of the eviction order passed in H. R. C. No. 28/77, dated 5-9-1980, Munsiff, Chintamani, and for such order relief or reliefs etc. , etc. ,"thereafter the present judgement-debtors who have filed the said suit, filed I. A. No. 3 under O. 21, R. 29 C. P. C. in Execution No. 16/84 requesting the executing Court to stay the fu