Subsequent purchasers possess the legal right to execute possession decrees under CPC without needing an assignment of the decree.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Civil Revision Application is preferred by unsuccessful tenants challenging the order dt. 27/28.11.2008 passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bandra in Revision Application No. 60 of 2008 upholding the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 3.12.2007 passed in Execution Application No. 2258 of 2006 in RAE Suit No. 1854 of 1970 whereby the Execution Application was allowed and respondent Company was allowed to execute the decree of eviction passed in the suit which is finally confirmed in Writ Petition No. 37 of 1992 and Special Leave Petition SC (D) 33479 of 2006.

3. The applicants herein are the heirs and legal representatives of the original deceased defendant no. 2 and respondents in Execution Application. The respondent hereinabove is the applicant in the Execution Application. The respondent Company herein was not a party to the suit but was joined as respondent no. 13 in Appeal No. 103 of 1983 filed by the original defendants challenging the eviction decree passed in the present proceeding. Few facts of the matter are as under:

4. RAE Suit No. 1854 of 1970 was decreed by the trial court by judgment and order dt. 23.11.1982. Appeal No. 103 of 1983 preferred by org. defendants against the judgment and order of the trial court was dismissed on 7.10.1991. Writ Petition No. 37 of 1992 filed by them was also dismissed on 5.10.2006. The said order was challenged by the applicants / tenant preferring SLP. The SLP was also dismissed. Thereafter the respondent filed Execution Application No. 2258 of 2006 for possession of the suit premises i.e. Shop no. 4, House No. 96, ErlaKadri Park, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056. The said Execution Application was opposed by the applicant tenants on several grounds including the ground that the respondents were not original parties in the present proceedings. They purchased the suit property by conveyance dt. 14.7.1985 and therefore, the respondents have no right to file Execution Application in a decree which was passed on the ground of arrears of rent. That application was rejected by the Executing Court by order dt. 3.12.2007. Hence, petitioners tenants preferred Revision Application No. 60 of 2008. That was also dismissed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court by oral judgment dt. 27th / 28th November, 2008. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned judgment passed by appellate Bench of Small Causes Court dated 27th / 28th November, 2008 in Revision Application No. 60 of 2008 confirming the order passed by Small Causes Court dated 3.12.2007 in Execution Application No. 2258 of 2006 is against justice, equity and good conscious and same is liable to be set aside. He submits that initially when original plaintiff filed Suit against org. defendant on the ground of arrears of rent and subletting, that time the respondents were not the parties. That suit was decreed by the trial court. Against that, the tenants preferred Appeal. That appeal was partly allowed and decree passed by trial court on the ground of arrears of rent confirmed. He submits that initially when the decree was passed the respondents were not the parties in the present proceeding. They purchased the suit property by conveyance deed dt. 14.7.1985. Therefore, the respondents have no right to execute the decree of eviction which was passed on the ground of arrears of rent. He further submits that even bare reading of conveyance deed dt. 14.7.1985 in favour of respondents show that they have n