A third party in possession who bona fide claims a right, title, and interest can file objections in execution proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Executing Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such objections and determine the right, title, and interest of the objector.

1. Shiv Dayal son of Ram Kumar has filed the present revision petition directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge/Appellate Authority, Narnaul dated 4-2-1999. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Court had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 7-9-1998. It was directed that the objections of the respondents should be disposed of after framing of the issues and recording of evidence.

2. The relevant facts are that petitioner Shiv Dayal filed an eviction petition against Maman Ram husband of respondent No. 1 Sulochana Devi. The eviction was prayed with respect to the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of rent, impairing the value and utility of the property without the consent of the landlord. Respondent Maman Ram contested the petition and challenged the locus standi of the petition to file the eviction petition. He asserted that petitioner was not the owner in possession of the house in dispute. Rather the house belonged to one Basu Dev and Kamalapati. He had taken the house on rent from Kamalapati son of Ram Partap and had purchased the same in the name of his wife. The learned Rent Controller had gone into the controversy and held that Kamalapati had no right to sell the property in dispute and further that the sale deed was not proved by Maman Ram. It was held that there was an oral tenancy of Maman Ram under the petitioner. Even the Rent Controller went on to hold that in the eviction petition, respondent-Maman Ram was liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent.

3. It appears that Maman Ram even has filed the appeal which is pending before the Appellate Authority, Narnaul. In appeal the order passed by the learned Rent Controller had not been stayed.

4. The petitioner filed an execution application. Therein Sulochana Devi, respondent No. 1 wife of Maman Ram filed objection. She asserted that she is the owner of the house and purchased it vide sale deed dated 7-1-1994. The sale deed is within the notice of the petitioner and he has challenged the correctness of the same. She insisted that the property was once owned by one Bal Bahadur Parsad. He had four sons. It fell to the share of Kamalapati who was the grandson of Bal Bahadur Parsad. Kamalapati had let out the property to Maman Ram vide a rent note. Later on Sulochana Devi wife of Maman Ram had purchased the said property. She is bona fide purchaser for consideration and, therefore, can protect her possession.

5. Objections had been contested by petitioner Shiv Dayal. He insisted that objector Sulochana Devi has nothing to do with the objections. The sale deed is illegal, null and void. It is a paper transaction. Needless to emphasise that Sulochana Devi has filed a civil suit for declaration in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Mahendgergarh. During the pendency of the civil suit, she prayed for an ad interim injunction to restrain the petitioner from interfering in her possession. Learned Civil Judge, Mahendergarh on 14-11-1998 held that respondent-Sulochana Devi has no prima facie case. The ad interim injunction had been refused.

6. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the objections holding that respondent Sulochana Devi had the knowledge of the eviction petition. She has filed the objections in collusion with judgment-debtor Maman Ram. Holding that the same were without merit, the claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, Sulochana Devi preferred the appeal. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority held that Smt. Sulochana Devi is a third party and she has the right to file the objections and protect her possession. It was the duty of the Executing Court to frame the issues and dispose of the objections after recording of evidence. Accordingly, the case was remitted to the learned Rent Controller and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

7. On behalf of the respondents a preliminary objection was