Petitioner was in possession and could not invoke Order XXI Rule 99 without having been dispossessed; application found non-maintainable due to lack of independent rights under existing legal provisions.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is a third party, who filed an application, alleging that he is a tenant in the suit property and also an agreement holder, having paid substantial advance towards sale consideration, approached the executing Court, challenging the sale deed dated 18.04.2012 in E.P.No.151 of 2010 and also to determine the interest of the petitioner in the suit property and to consequently not dispossess him from the suit property. The said application was filed under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC and the same came to be returned, despite compliances made. Challenging the said order, returning the application, the present revision has been filed.

2. I have heard Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting 2nd respondent.

3. Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the tenant in respect of a portion of the suit property on and from 23.12.2020 and he has been running a mini Home Appliances/Electric and Electronic Peripherals Store under the name of style of M/s.Hi-Tech Services. It is the further case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3rd respondent and his son approached the petitioner for financial need to meet urgent expenses and the petitioner arranged for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, which was agreed to be adjusted towards future lease amounts or alternatively to return the same with interest. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently the respondents 3 and 4 had expressed their inability to repay the amount and offered the property for sale to the petitioner and on 23.12.2020, a sale agreement has also been entered into and substantial advances have been received by the respondents 3 and 4.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he came to know that some persons are attempting to disturb his possession and similarly attempts were made to take possession from other tenants. On enquiry, the petitioner claims that he came to know about the decree and he has filed the instant application to protect his possession. The petitioner also claims that the respondents 3 and 4 did not have any right in the suit property to even enter into sale agreement or lease deed and the decree holder has no valid title and the decree is a nullity in the eye of law. Consequently the auction purchase itself is challenged as being invalid and inexecutable. Besides seeking to determine his interest in the suit property, nd the petitioner also sought to challenge the auction purchase made by the 2 respondent, on the ground that the proclamation suffers from several irregularities and is not in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC.

5. The said application came to be returned by the executing Court on the ground that invocation of Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC was not proper and the petitioner was also called upon to produce the lease agreement under which the petitioner claims right. According to the petitioner, the said lease agreement was also produced and the Court was not satisfied that it covered the present period and again returned the petition, directing the petitioner to produce the subsisting lease agreement to establish the right of the petitioner. It is thereafter that the present revision has been filed, challenging the return made by the executing Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rengith K.G. and others Vs. Sheeba , 2024 SCC Online SC 2821, wher