Removal of sub-tenant in execution of the order.

The obstructor to the execution is the petitioner. The respondent herein is the landlord who filed O.S. No. 791 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif, Salem, against his tenant Ponnuram Chetti for possession. The suit was compromised, and, as per the compromise, the plaintiff became entitled to possession. Ponnuram Chetti failed to surrender possession within the time mentioned in the compromise decree. When the landlord went to take delivery of possession with the Amin, the revision petitioner who claims to be a tenant under Ponnuram Chetti obstructed delivery, with the result that the delivery was not effected and the present application was filed under Order 21, rule 97, Civil Procedure Code, for removal of the obstruction.

2. The case of the obstructor is that the suit and the compromise decree were collusive and fraudulent intended mainly to evict him. His further case is that originally the suit site was let out to one Balan Nambiar, the brother-in-law of the obstructor, in 1945, that Balan Nambiar put up superstructure on the site borrowing money from one Rukmani Ammal, that the creditor Rukmani Ammal filed a suit for recovery of money due from Balan Nambiar, that she obtained an order of attachment before judgment of the superstructure and the moveables in the hotel run by him in the suit site, that the landlord and others preferred claims to the properties attached, that they were allowed, that Rukmani Ammal filed two suits for setting aside the claim orders, that the suits were decreed, that the decrees were confirmed in appeal, that the creditor brought the attached properties to sale, that the judgment-debtor asked Ponnuram Chetti to purchase the superstructure for his benefit and that accordingly Ponnuram Chetti purchased the superstructure. The case of the obstructor is also that he became a partner of Balan Nambiar in 1954, that both he and Balan Nambiar executed a lease deed in favour of Ponnuram Chetti that later on the obstructor executed another lease deed in favour of Ponnuram Chetti that the landlord in the present case has not impleaded the obstructor as a party to the suit notwithstanding the fact that he knew that the obstructor was in possession of the suit property, that the obstructor has made large improvements, that he is prepared to deposit the rent into Court, and that the landlord is not entitled to recover possession.

3. The trial Court considered the only question raised whether the obstruction by the revision petitioner was justified and whether he was protected from ejectment. The learned District Munsif overruled the objections of the obstructor and allowed the petition for removal of the obstruction filed by the landlord.

4. The obstructor has filed the above civil revision petition. The undisputed facts are: The respondent herein is the owner of the suit site. The defendant in the suit, Ponnuram Chetti, has taken the suit site on oral lease in 1909 and he is the owner of the superstructure on the site. The obstructor claims to be a tenant under Ponnuram Chetti as per Exhibit B-12 dated 17th December, 1956. In the suit filed by the landlord against Ponnuram Chetti which ended in a compromise, the tenant elected to receive a compensation of Rs. 850 for the superstructure put up by him and agreed to deliver possession of the suit property within six months from the date of the compromise. The landlord applied for amendment of the decree by adding the words "including the superstructure thereon" after the suit property in the operative portion of the decree. He had also prayed for the addition of the words "the superstructure" after the words ‘‘vacant site" in the description of the property given in the decree. On 16th March, 1968, the amendment was ordered. By reason of the amendment of the decree, the landlord will be entitled to possession of the vacant site and the superstructure thereon from his tenant, Ponnuram Chetty. The contention of the obstructor is that the suit is a