These two appeals are disposed of by this judgment as they arise from the order passed by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH9), in Execution Petition 1094/2015. The appellants are two of the objectors out of six under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short). The events that led to preferring these two appeals are as follows :

2. The respondent instituted a suit, O.S.836/1981, for ejecting her tenant, namely Vasanth Color Laboratories Private Limited and obtained a decree. She also initiated execution proceedings to take possession. The executing court issued delivery warrant on 15.10.2015 and this was challenged by the judgment debtor by filing writ petition 46319/2015 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/. Aggrieved by this order, the judgment debtor approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition, SLP 5557/2016 and it was also dismissed on 4.3.2016 directing the judgment debtor to file an undertaking that it would vacate the suit schedule property on or before 30.6.2016. Accordingly, the judgment debtor filed an undertaking affidavit before this court. On 30.6.2016, the judgment debtor got the execution case preponed and on that day the judgment debtor’s advocate handed over keys of a property admeasuring 5500 sq ft, but the total measurement of the suit schedule property or the decreed schedule property is 46,500 sq ft. The judgment debtor surrendered a portion of the suit schedule property and still possession of property measuring 41,000 sq ft was to be handed over to the decree holder. The judgment debtor filed an affidavit stating that some of the portions of the suit schedule property were under the occupation of tenants inducted by it even before the order was passed by the Supreme Court and it was also stated that they were all lawfully subtenants and that they had made application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC showing resistance to evicting them from the portions under their occupation. The executing court dismissed the applications under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and hence these two appeals.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

4. It was the argument of the learned appellants’ counsel that the appellants were lawful subtenants. The lease deed between the decree holder and the judgment debtor provided for subletting. Actually, the property leased to the judgment debtor was a vacant land; it was the judgment debtor who constructed a building and subleased some portions of the said building. The learned counsel submitted that after the decree holder terminated the tenancy of the judgment debtor, the appellants became the tenants in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. They should have been made parties to the suit. Since they were not parties to the suit and that they have independent right in respect of the portions subleased to them, they have independent right. Their application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC should not have been dismissed by the executing court without holding enquiry. The executing court did not raise proper questions for discussion. The appellants have every right to object to the execution and that the decree holder cannot take possession from them. He also argued that since the dispute between the decree holder and the judgment debtor commenced in the year 1981, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act are applicable and Section 32 of the Karnataka Rent Act protects the possession of the appellants. It was his another point of argument that this court can reconsider the grievance of the appellants by following the provisions of Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the following judgments :

(i) Chandra Bai vs Tukaram and Others [1977 Kar.LJ 270]

(ii) Balumal P. Seth vs Giriyappa [ILR 1991 KAR 1256]

(iii) Hotel Kings and Others vs Sara Farhan Lukmani and Others [(2007) 1 SCC