MILAP CHANDRA, J. — This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Balotra dated April 19, 1989 by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner dated 1.4.89 for hearing him before dispossessing him from the disputed premises in execution of the warrant for the delivery of possession to the decree-holders-non-petitioner No.l. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

2. The decree-holder-non-petitioner No. 1 Parasmal obtained a decree for ejectment against his tenants Pharas Ram, Ramesh Chandra, Kalu @ Madhavlal & Smt. Tulsi. This Court granted time for two months to make payment and to deliver the actual & physical possession of the suit premises by order dated 14.12.87. On their failure to comply with the order, the execution application was moved. Warrant for the delivery of possession was issued. The judgment-debtor No. 2 Ramesh Kumar being the Clerk of Shri Hansaram, Advocate, Siwana, came to know about it. He brought the petitioner Hansuddin and other memberas of his family in the suit Kremises. The judgment debtors sought time to file reply and make payment but they failed to do so, when the Sale Amin came to ex-ecute the warrant, the petitioner Hansuddin told him that he is in occupation & possession of the suit premises independently as a tenant of the decree-holder and he is not bound with the decree under execution. Thereafter, the decree-holder moved an application stating that the petitioner and members of his family who did not allow the execution of the warrant, are the man of the judgment-debtors, they are not his tenants, they have no independent right to occupy the suit premises and they are bound with the decree under execution. It has also been stated in the application that the judgment-debtor No. 2 Ramesh Kumar is the clerk of Shri Hansa Ram, Advocate practising in Siwana and the petitioner does typing & photo-state copying work in front of the court premises at Siwana It was prayed in the application that warrant for delivery of possession be again issued and the actual & physical possession of the suit premises be delivered to the decree-holder after evicting the judgment-debtor his agent & persons. The same day, an application was moved by the petitioner Hansuddin stating that he is not bound with the decree under execution, he is in possession of the suit premises independently as a tenant of the decree-holder no action can be taken against him ian the execution proceedings. He prayed that he may be heard before any action is taken against him in these execution proceedings, After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge rejected the application of the petitioner and allowed the application of the decree-holder, by his order dated April 19, 1989, which has been challenged in this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application of the decree-holder dated 1.4 89 was an application moved under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. and as such it was neccessary for the Executing Court to hold an enquiry under Order 21.Rule 101, C.P.C. and no fresh warrant for the delivery of possession could be issued before completing the enquiry. He further contended that the petitioner is in occupation and possession of the disputed premises independently as a tenant of the decree-holder he is not bound with the decree under execution and he cannot be evicted in these execution prceedings. He relied upon Bhagwan Das v. Sampat Ram, (1) During the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced certified copies of the applications of the decree-holder and the petitioner dated 1.4.89 and also the application dated 20.4.89 of decree-holder for police help and for permission to break open the lock for delivering the possession of the disputed premises.

4. At the out-set, it may be observed that the learned District Judge has mentioned in his order under revision that the petitioner has no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document