A party dispossessed after contesting execution cannot invoke Order XXI Rule 99 if they retained an opportunity to object under Rule 97, marking them effectively as a judgment debtor.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The revision petitioner is an obstructor, who filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, claiming to be a bonafide tenant and not being a party to the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The said application has been dismissed at the SR stage, holding that the application is not maintainable. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. I have heard Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, for Mr.P.D.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

3. Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the original tenants under the 1^st respondent were carrying on business under the name and style of New Ramakrishna Lunch Home under the 1^st respondent, as a tenant. He would further contend that the rent control proceedings were initiated against the erstwhile predecessors in interest of the revision petitioner and eviction came to be ordered in RCOP.No.1299 of 2018. Execution petition in E.P.No.275 of 2021 was filed by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner obstructed to the execution and therefore, the 1^st respondent took out an application in E.A.No.4 of 2025 for removal of obstruction. The executing Court allowed the said application on 19.08.2025, after hearing the revision petitioner, as well as the 1^st respondent. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has been dispossessed on 19.09.2025. The revision petitioner filed E.A.SR.No.45179 of 2025 under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, complaining of dispossession. The said application has been rejected as not being maintainable.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that the revision petitioner is entitled to maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC and the very language of the provision indicates that any person other than the judgment debtor can take recourse to Rule 99 of CPC to establish his rights in the property, from which, he has been dispossessed. He would further state that merely because the removal of obstruction petition in E.A.No.4 of 2025 has been allowed, it does not prevent the revision petitioner from filing an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC. He would also take me through certain correspondences between the parties to reinforce his argument that the decree holder was very much aware of the fact that the revision petitioner was the person actually doing business under the name and style of “New Ramakrishna Lunch Home” and they had also received a substantial sum of Rs.40 lakhs from the petitioner towards arrears of rent payable by the judgment debtors/respondents tenants. He would therefore state that the revision petitioner was negotiating with the 1^st respondent for clinching a fresh agreement and mischievously the 1^st respondent has proceeded to execute the decree and dispossess the revision petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the petitioner has an independent right in the subject property and unless he is given an opportunity to prosecute his application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, the petitioner would be put to serious prejudice and hardships. He would rely on the following decisions:

1. Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another , (1997) 3 SCC 694 .

2. Silverline Forum Private Limited Vs. Rajiv Trust and another , (1998) 3 SCC 723 .

3. Mst.Hashmi @ Batu