Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties finally on these two revision petitions.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff non-petitioner obtained decree for eviction against one Mohd. Hanif , now deceased for eviction from the suit premises on 20-1-98. The appeal filed ‘by deceased Mohd. Hanif was dismissed by the appellate Court on 25-1-200 1. The execution petition was submitted by non-petitioner No. 1 in which present petitioner Smt. Jaharoon. who is daughter ofjudgment-debtor, submitted an objection petition under Order 21, Rule 97. CPC stating therein that the suit premises was originally let out to Fateh Mohd. The father of the petitioner and judgment-debtor Mohd. Hanif , Fateh Mohd. expired and during the life time of Fateh Mohd. the petitioner was also residing with Fateh Mohd. After the death of Fateh Mohd. the petitioner is residing with his brother judgment-debtor Mohd. Hanif in the suit premises. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, she became tenant being heir of original tenant Fateh Mohd. and there is no decree for eviction against the petitioner. Despite this fact, the non-petitioner No. 1 decree-holder wants to evict the pet