The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to substantiate his claim of independent tenancy rights under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the consequences of failing to do so.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Jawalkar, J. - Heard. admit. The matter is taken up for final disposal at the request of and by consent of the parties at the stage of admission.

2. The present second appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 18/11/2021 passed by the learned ad-hoc District Judge-01, Nagpur in Regular Civil appeal No.166/2021 thereby the judgment and decree dated 25/03/2019 passed below Exhibit 45 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Divison, Nagpur in Special Darkhast No.49/2014 was confirmed. The learned Executing Court rejected the objection raised by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Court vide order dated 30/11/2021 framed following two substantial questions of law :

i) Have not both the learned Courts committed a manifest error of law, in rejecting the objection on merits without reading the pleadings in the objection, though as per para 14 of the order dated 31/08/2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.2027/2018, the learned executing court was first supposed to decide whether any dispute as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 97 has been raised without going into the merits?

ii) Can the impugned judgment and decree be sustained in view of procedural lapse in not following the mandatory procedure of Order 21 Rule 101 of CPC read with Para 345, Chapter 21 of Civil Manual, despite the fact that by way of the judgment dated 18/11/2021 the objector is held to be a total stranger and his possession is undisputed?

3. Learned advocate for objector/appellant submitted that respondent No.1 is a landlord of suit property. The objector/appellant is in lawful possession of the suit premises since 1983 when he along with his father was inducted by landlord/respondent No.1 in the property as a tenant. In the year 1992, the respondent No.1 requested the appellant and his family to temporarily shift to other place as he was intending to construct a building on the suit property. as he assured that he will be re-inducted the appellant, the appellant and his father temporarily shifted to some other place in the month of July, 1994. He along with his father re-inducted in the suit premises by respondent No.1 by way of tenancy right. The appellant paid Rs.800/- monthly rent to respondent No.1/landlord. The amount was then enhanced to Rs.1500/-. In the month of October, 1994 on the day of Dassehra respondent No.1/landlord came along with respondent No.2 who is the brother of the appellant and asked the appellant to pay rent to respondent No.2 as he has sold property in question to respondent No.2. accordingly, the appellant started paying rent to respondent No.2. In the year 1995, the appellant started new business by name and style 'airtech marketing' a proprietorship of the appellant, with the consent of respondent No.2 who was the purchaser of the suit property. after registration of the said firm, the appellant was smoothly running the business on the said property and used to pay rent to respondent No.2. He came to know about litigation between the respondents in respect of their sale-deed, however, he was not having any concern with the said transaction and was paying rent to respondent No.2 regularly. In December, 2011, respondent No.1 instructed the appellant to pay rent to him as he has succeeded in the litigation against the respondent No.2. as respondent No.1 instructed to pay rent to him even though respondent No.2 is intending to challenge the order in the Supreme Court, he started paying rent to respondent No.1.

4. It is his case that on 04/07/2017 when some person claiming to be bailiff came to the property in question for execution of decree he came to know about passing of decree. Thus, the appellant filed objection dated 06/07/2017 under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 wherein he specifically stated that he was not party to that proceeding between respondents interse. He also claimed that he is having independent right, t