( 1 ) IN the light of the decisions of this court and also of the other high courts taking different views on the question involved in this civil revision petition, it is referred to a division bench.

( 2 ) THIS c. r. p. is preferred against the order dated 24-8-1989 passed by the learned additional small causes judge (s. c. c. h. 3), Bangalore city in ex. No. 4737/89. The petitioner is an objector to the decree and the respondent is the decree-holder.

( 3 ) THE respondent is the landlord of the premises in question. He obtained an order of eviction under Section 21 (1) (f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') on 4-1-1989 against Sri a. m. bhatia. The order of eviction was put into execution in ex. Case No. 4737/89. The petitioner objected to the same by filing an objection under Section 47, C. P. C. stating that the order of eviction passed in h. r. c. No. 2828/86 against a. m. bhatia was not binding upon him and that he was in possession of the schedule premises in his own right as a tenant; therefore, the order of eviction obtained against a. m. bhatia cannot be executed so as to dispossess him from the premises and secure possession of the same. Before causing obstruction to the execution by filing objection, the petitioner filed o. s. No. 2886/1988 on 21-6-1988 in the city civil court against the respondent for a declaration that he is in possession of the schedule premises as a tenant and the order of eviction passed in h. r. c. No. 2828/86 is not binding upon him and to permanently restrain the respondent from executing the said order of eviction and dispossessing the petitioner-plaintiff from the schedule premises.

( 4 ) HE also filed an application under order 21, Rule 26 of C. P. C. to stay the execution proceedings in ex. Case No. 4737/89. In the suit an order was passed on 30-6-1988 directing the parties to maintain the status quo. That order was challenged in c. r. p. No. 4105/1989 before this court. This court by the order dated 17-7-1989 rejected the c. r. p. with the following observations:"petitioner has challenged the order of maintaining status quo passed by the lower court on 30-6-1988 and continued on 19-7-1988. By ordering the maintenance of status quo the court meant that the parties should maintain the status quo as it existed on that date. It does not prevent the decree-holder from executing the decree, as there is no stay order or any prohibitory order. With the above clarification, this civil revision petition is rejected. "consequently, the executing court proceeded with the execution. The executing court by the order dated 24-8-1989 held that the order of eviction was passed under Section 21 (1) (f) and (h) of the act; and that the original tenant was bhatia, the question as to whether the petitioner is a tenant of the premises in his own right cannot be gone into in the course of execution. It also followed a decision of this court in Mahaveera v Mangaraj, ILR 1987 (2) kar. 1940 : 1988 (2) kar. Lj. 312 and held that the remedy of the petitioner was to file a suit after the order of eviction was executed and he was dispossessed from the premises. Accordingly, it held that the objections were not maintainable. The executing court also took a view that in the light of the order dated 17-7-1989 passed in c. r. p. No. 4105/1989, there was nothing to prevent the decree-hold. er from executing the decree. Accordingly, the executing court rejected the application filed under Section 47 of the c. p. code by the petitioner as not maintainable.

( 5 ) THE points that arise for consideration are as follows:1) whether it is open to a person who is not made a party to an order of eviction or a decree for possession, to obstruct execution of such order of eviction or decree for possession by filing objections to the execution? 2) if obstruction is offered by filing objections by such person, even if no application is filed under order 21, Rule 97 of the