CRP 204/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Heard Mr. G.C. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.N. Sahewall a, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1/ Decree Holder. The challenge made in this petition is an order dated 11.6.2008 passed in Misc.( J) Case No. 302/2007 by the learned executing court proposed to proceed with the misc. case rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to adduce evidence, in view of the order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 434/2007. T he respondent obtained the decree of ejectment from the suit premises the said d ecree was also confirmed by the higher courts. The decree was put into execution by filing the Execution Case No. 5/2005. In the said execution case the present petitioners filed objections purported to be under Order 21, Rule 99, C.P.C. cl aiming that in the part of the suit house they are residing since the time of th eir father late Thaneswar Bhagawati alongwith the original defendant late Bhabad eb Bhagawati. It is the further case of the petitioners that their father late T haneswar Bhagawati took more than 45 feet x25 feet from its original owner late Maniki Teliani on lease built his residential accommodation thereon a nd the petitioners acquired such lease hold right over the land from their fath er. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners are not bound by the decre e of eviction passed in favour of the plaintiff. The aforesaid petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 32/2007. In the mean time, the decree holder not being able to execute the decree during the pendency of the said misc. case approached this Court by filing Civil Revision Petition No. 434/2007 for a direction for early disposal of the misc. case by the executi ng court. Accordingly this revision petition was disposed of on 5.12.2007 direct ing the learned executing court to dispose of this proceeding of the Misc.(J)Cas e No. 32/2007 at an early date preferably within a period of three months from t he date of the order. In the aforesaid misc. case the present petitioners made a prayer to examine wit ness on their behalf in support of their case and the same was though initially allowed by the executing court on 12-1-1007, subsequently disposing the Petition No. 1974/2007 rejected the prayer to adduce evidence in view of the directions of the High court referred to above. Challenging the said order dated 11.6.2008, the present revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the CPC. Admittedly the provisions of Section 11 5 of the C.P.C. is not attracted to challenge the impugned order in-as-much-as the learned executing court is authorised by law to decide the manner and method as to how the misc. case is to be disposed of and the learned executing court h as not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. That ap art, as regards the provisions of Article 227 that sought to be applied to chal lenge the order passed by the learned trial court, I do not find that the petiti oner have not been able to make out such as case for interference. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are occupying the suit premises si nce the time of their father. Admittedly the father of the petitioners was not a tenant and the father of the petitioners derived his alleged right, if any, fro m the original tenant i.e. Bhabadeb Bhagawati and accordingly they would also f all within the meaning of tenant under the provisions of Section 2 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act and they are bound by the decree. So far the other allegations that the father of the petitioners took 45feet x 25 feet of land fro m one Malikini Tehelani, the original owner and built their residential structur e thereon and that the petitioners after their father’s death inherited the leas ehold right over the land the same would be considered at the time of execution of the decree and the learned executing court would not go behind the decree. Th e decree would be executed as per schedule of the decreetal land. Subject to the aforesaid observations this revisions petition is dispose d of.