( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code ) is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th January, 1984 of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi dismissing the petitioner s application for bringing him on record as legal representative of the deceased judgment debtor Murari Lal.

( 2 ) THERE arc the brief facts. Murari Lal judgment debtor was in possession of a room on second floor of House No. 4902 Gali Dakoton Wali, Laddo Ghati, Paharganj, New Delhi. Smt. Man Bhauti, respondent No. I filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages against him with respect to the said premises. The suit was decreed on 12th November, 1975.

( 3 ) SMT. Savitri Devi, respondent No. 2 on 18th January, 1982 filed an application for execution of the said decree for possession. She alleged that she purchased the entire property including the premises in occupation of Murari Lal judgment debtor by means of sale deed dated 22nd October. 1981 and supplementary sale deed dated 15th December, 1981 executed by Man Bhauti respondent No. 1. Notice of the execution was issued to the judgment debtor who filed objections dated 16th April, 1982 under Section 47 of the Code, alleging that the decree was inexecutable, that Savitri Devi had no right, title or locus standi to execute the decree, the decree was void ab initio and there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in the court passing the decree, that the jurisdiction of the court was barred by Section 50 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that the decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation besides others. Smt. Savitri Devi filed reply dated 7th May, 1982 denying the objections.

( 4 ) MURARI Lal judgment debtor died on 17th July. 1982 as a bachelor. Smt. Savitri Devi. respondent No. 2 on 20th September, 1982 filed an application under Order 22 rules 4a and 12 and Sections 50 and 151 of the Code alleging that Murari Lal died on 17th July, 1982 as bachelor, there was no legal representative of the deceased judgment debtor and prayed that she be substituted in place of Man Bhauti, Decree-holder and warrant of possession be issued in respect of the disputed premises.

( 5 ) ON 4th March, 1983 Chiranji Lal Sharma, petitioner filed an application under Order 22 read with Order I rule 10 and Section 50 and 151 of the Code before the executing court. He has alleged that Murari Lal, deceased judgment debtor filed objections, that he is his son that the objections of Murari Lal are required to be decided and he be substituted as his heir. Savitri Devi. respondent No. 2 filed reply dated 8th July, 1983 saying that Murari Lal was a tresspasser, that the petitioner had no locus standi, the objections filed by Murari Lal were false, that Murari Lal was a bachelor and the petitioner is not his son. It has been denied that petitioner is the heir of Murari Lal. The executing court by the impugned order has held that the petitioner was the nephew of Murari Lal, deceased judgment debtor, he was not the son and cannot claim to be an heir of the judgment debtor, that there was no need of his substitution and he do not inherit anything. By the impugned order Savitri Devi was brought on record in place of the original decree-holder and the executing court directed issue of warrants of possession. The petitioner has filed this revision.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the nephew of the deceased judgment debtor as held by the executing court is entitled to be substituted as his legal heir, that the possession of a trespasser is heritable and his heir is entitled to be brought on record, that the objections filed by Murari Lal cannot be decided without bringing on record his legal representative, that it is mandatory to bring the legal representative of the judgment debtor on recod and in any case the estate of the deceased judgment debtor must be represented by some person before the court. Learned counsel f