Ranjit Singh, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order, rejecting the objection filed by him as a third party for the execution of a decree dated 27.10.2006. The petitioner filed an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rules 100 and 101 CPC by alleging that he has come to know that decree holder, Smt. Shanti Devi had applied to dispossess the objector from the shop in question by taking police help. Claiming himself to be a tenant of Murti Sidheshwar Shivji Maharaj through its Mohtmim and Manager Om Parkash, the petitioner has pleaded that he is not bound by the decree as he was not party to the same. He further alleges that Moti Lal, father of the objector and Moti Ram, Judgment Debtor are two different person, having no relation between each other. Plea further is that a decree under execution had been got passed by the decree holder by playing fraud with the Court of Rent Controller and this decree was got passed by forging documents like rent note etc. According to the petitioner, the decree holder is neither the owner of the shop nor was she in possession of the same. Thus, there was no occasion for her to create a tenancy in favour of any one