SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Civil Misc. Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30-01-2018 passed by Learned Execution Munsif, Gaya in Execution case No. 10 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the petition dated 24.01.2018 of the petitioner / objector to stay the proceeding of execution case till the disposal of title suit bearing No. 3 of 2018 was rejected.

3. Respondent No. 01 (Decree-holder) had filed a Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2004 (1 of 2000) in the Court of Munsif- 1st, Gaya for eviction of Scheduled property and after hearing both parties, the suit has been decreed in favour of the Respondent No. 1/ Decree-holder on 13-04-2005. The Respondent No.1 as Decree holder filed the Execution Case No. 10 of 2005 against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Judgment Debtors) for delivery of vacant possession over the tenanted portion (5 rooms pucca house occupied by Judgment Debtors) of the suit property in which delivery of possession has been issued.

4. The claim of the petitioner / objector is that out of five rooms in the ground floor of suit premises two rooms are under the possession of Respondent No. 2 and two rooms under the possession of Respondent No. 3 who are Judgment Debtors and one room is under the possession of the petitioner as a tenant of Respondent No. 4 (brother of Decree holder- Respondent No.1). The petitioner claimed that the Decree holder wrongly stated in the plaint that 2 ½ rooms each are in possession of Judgment Debtors (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3). He is in possession of one room as tenant but he has not been made party in the eviction suit. He came to know about the execution proceeding in which the room in possession of the petitioner as tenant is also part of the execution proceeding, then he filed an application dated 24.01.2018 before the Court of learned Execution Munsif 1st, Gaya praying to stay the proceeding of execution case till the disposal of the suit bearing Title Suit No. 3 of 18 filed on 16.01.2018 by him against the decree holder claiming therein a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to eject the petitioner save and except under Bihar Building (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short ‘Bihar Building Act’).

5. The learned trial court observed in the impugned order that Md. Matloob and Shahab Alam are defendants and the decree was contested decree. Both the defendants preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree and the same was dismissed on 31.07.2013 by the Court of learned Ad hoc A.D.J IV, Gaya. In this case, the applicant neither have any independent title nor living with express written permission of the landlord. The petitioner in his earlier petition took the plea that Decree-holder is not the actual landlord of the suit property and the suit property is a Waqf property. In his petition dated 24.01.2018 he has submitted that he is under the tenancy of Md. Nazir (wrongly mentioned in petition as Md. Matloob) who is full brother of the Decree-holder and thus there is vital contradiction in the petitions of the petitioner. The learned court below held that there is no force in the petition of objector / petitioner and was filed only to linger the execution of decree.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree passed in Eviction Suit No. 02/2004 and D.P. issued in Execution Case No. 10/2005 is not binding on the petitioner in any manner as the petitioner was not a party in the said proceedings. He has further submitted that there is no relationship of landlord and the tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and his landlord is Md. Nazir who is full brother of respondent No. 1.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the decree passed by the learned court below applies to all occupants of the premises. The tenant Md. Matloob has admitted in his deposition that Roshan (petitioner) is son of his sis