A tenant who is a "statutory tenant" under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is entitled to protection against eviction under Rule 36 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, even if the tenancy was created during the pendency of a partition suit and the non-petitioner has obtained a decree for partition.

( 1 ) BECAUSE comprehension of the legal issues involved in this matter differed diametrically, counsel extracted, unfortunately, an extended hearing, citing unnecessarily a huge mass of case-law. This happened despite my warning, rendered to discharge my constitutional duty, that directionless arguments with misplaced emphasis served no cause of justice.

( 2 ) EVEN at this stage, I must, as well, state that endless arguments were advanced on the scope, ambit and applicability of S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, for short, the T. P. Act, while, according to me, the controversy in issue merited resolution with reference merely to the provisions of R. 36 of O. 21 of the Civil P. C. , which I extract :"36. Decree for delivery of immovable property when in occupancy of tenant.- Where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property in the occupancy of a tenant or other person entitled to occupy the same and not bound by the decree to relinquish such occupancy, the Court shall order delivery to be made by affixing a copy of the warrant in some conspicuous place on the property, and proclaiming to the occupant by beat of drum or other customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance of the decree in regard to the property. "some justification for the misadventure is, however, to be foundin the approach to the question adopted by the Executing Court which is amply manifested in the impugned order itself. In para 6 of the impugned order, the Court held that after preliminary decree was passed in the partition suit, it was not open to judgement-debtor Radhi Kishan (sic) to induct the objector (Ramji Das, the revisionist) on the suit property as tenant and the objector could not, therefore, validly resist the prayer made on 6-11-1978 by the decree-holder (herein non-petitioner No. 1) for an order in the Execution proceeding for delivery to him of vacant possession of the part of the suit property in revisionist's possession. It may be mentioned in this connection that in the original application filed on 19-5-1978, the revisionist Ramji Das was not cited as the judgement-debtor and indeed, the execution of the decree was sought merely against Satyanarayna and Narayani Devi, son and daughter respectively of Radha Kishan; and Jethmal s/o. Ganeshilal.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, a few more background facts, on which much reliance was placed by counsel on both sides, may also be noticed. One Murlidhar was co-sharer with Radha Kishan and Jethmal in the property of which a part subsequently came to be let out by Jethmal, to the revisionist. Murlidhar's share was sold in Court auction on 19-9-1952 which was purchased by Lakshmi Kumar Baori (non-petitioner No. 1 ). On 30-9-1952, it was sold by Lakshmi Kumar to Madan Gopal who got symbolic possession of his purchased share of the property and instituted a partition suit against Radha Kishan and Jethmal in which a preliminary decree was passed on 11-2-1965 in Civil Suit No. 90/60. Before the final decree could be drawn up, two interesting events happened. On 24-4-1966, Lakshmi Kumar instituted Civil Suit No. 4a/67 against Madan Gopal, alleging the latter to be his Benamidar. In that suit, he got a decree on 16-3-1974, by which his title to the property was declared. The catalytic event of greater importance which also took place in 1966 and is indeed the bone of contention between the parties in this revision, is induction of the revisioinist as a tenant on a part of the property which formed subject-matter of the partition suit. It is also submitted that after Lakshmi Kumar got himself substituted in the partition proceeding in place of Madan Gopal, in 1974-75, he entered into negotiations with the other parties to the partition suit and the final decree which was prepared on 18-5-1978 was on the basis of collusive settlement between the parties, to dispossess the revisionist. Whatever that may be, the solid fact emerging finally is that on 18-5-1978, "decree for delivery of