ORDER :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the Executing Court in returning the Application filed under Order XXI, Rule 99 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the revision petitioner for certain defects.

2. The brief facts leading to this Execution Petition is as follows:

2.1. The decree holders were originally filed the suit for specific performance as against the judgment debtor in O.S. No. 148 of 2005. The suit was filed in the year 2005. The suit was decreed in favour of the third respondent herein for specific performance on 15.09.2012. The appeal filed as against the decree holders reached finality. The Special Leave Petition in SLP No. 3820 of 2016 was also dismissed. The above decree was put in Execution in E.P. No. 5 of 2013. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal in C.M.P. No. 7528 of 2006 in A.S. No. 243 of 2006, this Court, by order, dated 16.05.2006 granted interim injunction against the judgment debtor not to alienate or encumber the property till 15.06.2006. Subsequently, the above injunction order was made absolute, by order, dated 16.06.2006. After such injunction order it appears that the judgment debtor has entered into a Lease Agreement in favour of the revision petitioner for a period of 9 years from 20.12.2010. The revision petitioner now claims to be a tenant on the basis of the unregistered Agreement exceeding one year. He has also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 for obstructing the delivery, the above Application is returned for certain defects, however, he has not complied with. As against such return, the present revision is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the decree is only for execution of the document is not relating to the delivery of possession, therefore, the delivery cannot be ordered. The second submission was that the revision petitioner is the lawful tenant, he cannot be evicted, his objection has to be heard and the delivery cannot be affected. Further, his contention is that the Execution Court ought not to have returned the application for certain defects. It is his contention that the revision has to be allowed and the revision petitioner should be given an opportunity to resist the delivery since he is a lawful tenant. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the order of this Court in C.R.P.(PD) No. 2660 of 2017 dated 01.11.2017 [Krithiga Vs. U. Praveen Kumar] and the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shreenath Vs. Rajesh reported in 1998-2-L.W. 418 : 1998 AIR (SC) 1827.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 that, the tenant, who has been inducted into possession pending the suit has no right to obstruct the delivery. Further, it is his contention that the Application for objection cannot be maintained. It is further contention that even delivery can be sought in executing the specific performance and hence submitted that the revision lacks merits, the Application filed only to delay the execution. In support of his submissions, he has also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Venkatesan vs. E. Dhavamani and others reported in 2010 Law Suit (Mad) 1839 and Chelladurai vs. Avudaippan Konar reported in 2015 (2) LW 1991.

5. I have perused the entire materials. The facts as narrated above makes it clear that, the revision petitioner was inducted as a tenant on the basis of unregistered lease agreement for a period of 9 years. During the pendency of the suit, this Court has injected the judgment debtor not to alienate or create any encumbrance in C.M.P. No. 7528 of 2006 in A.S. No. 243 of 2006 as referred above.

6. Despite the order of injunction that the judgment debtor during the pendency of the suit has inducted third party as a tenant for a period of 9 years that too in a unregistered lease agreement. It is well settled that the lease exceeding one year requires compulsory registration.