A third party objector has the right to raise objections and have their grievances heard before actual delivery of possession in an execution case. A claim of adverse possession cannot be accepted if the petitioner fails to prove prima facie title and if the evidence contradicts the claim.

A. S. NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THE present writ application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by a third party intervenor in an Execution case challenging the order/judgment dated September 21, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge. Fast Track Court, Cuttack, in Civil Revision No. 88 of 1999. The said civil revision arose out of an order dated October 13, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Cuttack in Execution Case No. 11 of 1996.

( 2 ) BEREFT of all the unnecessary details, the brief facts giving rise to the case are as follows : one Mahavir Prasad Halan, claiming to be the landlord filed HRC Case No. 19 of 1970 under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent control Act, 1967 in the Court of the House rent Controller, Cuttack against the tenant one laxman Patnaik praying for his eviction from the premises appertaining to Holding No. 539 situated in Ward No. 25 of Cuttack Municipality. The learned House Rent Controller by his judgment dated May 11, 1976 categorically arrived at a conclusion that the tenant was a willful defaulter and has sublet a portion of the house to a sub-lessee Madan Singh and had conducted himself against the interest of the landlord by subsequently denying his title to a part of the land premises and that the landlord needed the premises for his bona fide personal occupational use. The said order of eviction was challenged in HRC Appeal No. 18 of 1976. By judgment dated January 3, 1977 the appellate authority confirmed the finding of the learned House Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

( 3 ) THE tenant thereafter filed O. J. C. No. 36 of 1977 in this Court, vide Judgment dated january 15,1979, this Court set-aside the judgment passed in appeal and remitted back the matter to the appellate authority with a direction for fresh disposal of the appeal after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence only with regard to the matter of subletting and after making local inspection for appreciating the evidence on record.

( 4 ) IN pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the parties were given opportunity to lead further evidence in the matter of subletting and local inspection of the premises was conducted by the appellate authority on june 21, 1979 and the memorandum prepared was placed in the record. The appellate authority by

judgment dated August 7, 1979 allowed the appeal the set-aside the order of eviction passed by the learned House Rent controller.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the matter was once again brought before this Court in O. J. C. No. 1537 of 1979 wherein the landlord challenged the order passed by the appellate authority. The said writ application was disposed of by judgment dated July 27, 1989. This Court set-aside the judgment passed by the appellate authority and confirmed the order of eviction. A direction was given to the tenant to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. The order passed in the said writ application was assailed in the Supreme Court in civil Appeal No. 2880 of 1991, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on March 27, 1995, thereby confirming the order of eviction.

( 6 ) WHILE the matter stood thus, the Original landlord (decree holder) alienated the properties in favour of opposite party No. 1 by means of a registered sale deed. Thus, the present opposite party No. 1 became the absolute owner having right, title and interest over the disputed premises. Opposite party No. 1 in consonance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter called as "the Code", initiated Execution Case No. 11 of 1998 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court. Cuttack to execute the order of eviction passed by the learned House Rent Controller which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The executing Court issued a writ of delivery of possession on January 8, 1991. When the process server went for execution of writ of delivery of possession, the pre