The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the procedure established by law and held that the revision petitioner's claim to possession was flawed as it interfered with a subsisting jural relationship created by the original lessor and lessee.

ORDER :

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC., praying to set aside the order and decretal order dated 13.07.2016 made in E.A.No.34 of 2015 in E.P.No.466 of 2013 in Ejt. Suit No.2 of 1988, on the file of learned Registrar, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

The present revision is preferred by a third party to an ejectment suit in O.S.No.2 of 1988 on the file of the Registrar, Small Causes Court, Chennai, challenging an order dismissing his petition in E.A.No.34 of 2015 filed under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C.

2. The facts that led up to the institution of the present revision petition may be briefly stated:

? A vacant site measuring 14 and odd grounds belonged to a certain Thanikesan Pillai. On 15.09.1937, he granted a ground lease of the entire property to one Kakka Mohammed Ismail. Within few months thereafter, to be precise on 12.03.1938, the lessee, Kakka Mohamed Ismail transferred the lease to a certain Shyamalamba. The said Shyamalamba, in turn had inducted quite a few individuals as sublessees, and one among them is one Senthamarai Kannan. He was a sub-lessee of 2,486 sq.ft under Shyamalamba.

? While so, Shyamalamba had filed a set of litigations against her lessees and one among them is O.S.No.2 of 1988, which she had laid against Senthamarai Kannan. On 18.04.2005, this suit came to be decreed. Aggrieved by the same, Senthamarai Kannan, the lessee laid C.R.P.No.996 of 2006, rather unsuccessfully, as the same came to be dismissed by this Court on 24.02.2012.

? In the meantime, Shyamalamba had passed away, and her legal heirs have already stepped into the proceedings. The decree holders would now institute E.P.No.466 of 2013.

? During the pendency of the execution proceedings, on 12.02.2014, the two daughters of Thanikesan Pillai (the original owners of the entire block of the property), had sold an extent of 2,255 sq.ft to the revision petitioner. On the strength of these sale deeds, the revision petitioner interfered with the pending execution proceedings with an application in E.A.No.34 of 2015 under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C.

? Vide order dated 13.07.2016, E.A.No.34/2015 came to be dismissed. The line of reasoning of the Execution Court is that since the lease to Shyamalamba expires only in 2026, the application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C is premature, since the sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner itself would take effect only after the expiry of the lease. This order is now under challenge.

3.1 Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the Execution Court has misconceived the vesting of right to the property when it held that the sale deeds obtained by the revision petitioner are incapable of vesting the right in presenti, and that vesting of right is postponed till the lease in favour of the lessee is expired. While vesting of title of the lessors in favour of their purchasers happens in presenti, and the physical enjoyment of the property under lease might have to wait till after the expiry of the lease period, which the Execution Court ignored.

3.2 So far as the present case is concerned, the revision petitioner had already entered possession on the strength of the sale deeds in his favour, and that he neither claims possession under Senthamarai Kannan, the JD in E.P.No.466 of 2013, nor is he a trespasser since he is in possession of the property on the strength of the sale deeds he had obtained from the lessors.

4. Per contra, Mr.S.A.Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents made the following submissions:

a) Under Order 21 Rule 102 C.P.C., a pendente lite transferee is not entitled to invoke Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C;

b) The jural relationship between the decree holder and Senthamarai Kannan is different from their jural relationship with the revision petitioner. Every lease creates a jural relationship and every successive transfer by the lessee creates a fresh jural relationship. Therefore, unless the lease is terminated and