The petitioner, who is a third party filed this revision petition aggrieved by the order of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatna in the unnumbered E.A. in E.P. No.22 of 2009 in O.S. No. 987 of 997,dated 22.3.2010. The petitioner herein filed the claim petition before the trial Court seeking to register his claim by declaring him as a tenant of the schedule premises being in possession of the same in his independent right and that the decree in the suit in O.S. No. 987 of 1997 is void and is not binding on him and to consequently to hold that the execution proceedings passed in E.P. No.22/09 are also not binding on him. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated that he is the tenant of the schedule premises and has been carrying on business under the name and style “New Nandini Furnitures”. He further stated that the decree holder in the suit in O.S. No. 987 of 1997 and the judgment debtors have colluded with each other and contested the suit procedings so as to defeat the interest of the claim petitioner He further stated that he had taken the schedule premises on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- from one Bommidi Thotal Rao, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. He also entered into an unregistered rental agreement with the said Tata Rao on 7.9.1996 initially for a period of three years and the same was being extended from time to time. Subsequent to the death of Thota Rao, the tenancy was extended by the heirs of the deceased Thota Rao, i.e., respondents 3 to 6. He further stated that he was carrying on business in the said schedule premises in addition to carrying out certain contract works to Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and he had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the premises in question in his independent right as a tenant. While so, on 1.2.2010 and 2.2.2010, the respondents 1 to 9 along with some third parties have been frequently visiting the schedule premises and trying to give it on lease. Petitioner states that he is a statutory tenant having been inducted by the deceased Thota Rao under a rent agreement dated 7.9.1996 and the tenancy has not been terminated either by the decesed Thota Rao during his life time nor by his legal heirs. Petitioner alleged that respondents 1 to 9, in collusion with the 10th respondent are contemplating to evict him from the premises in question under the guise of the decree in O.S. No. 987 of 1997 and the said decree is not binding on him as he is in possession of the property in his own right. He, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed by granting the reliefs sought for. The trial Court having perused the averments contained in the petition filed in support of the E.A. and the evidence on record, found that the proceedings have been pending for more than 13 years d agreement,