1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2826 OF 2010 M/s. Meena Caterers .... Petitioner Vs. Rusi @ Rustum K. Irani .... Respondent Mr. A. V. Anturkar i/b. Mr. S. B. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr. G. N. Salunkhe for Respondent. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : MAY 6, 2010 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. In execution of a decree, a possession warrant has been issued. The Petitioner made an Application at Exhibit 51 in the execution proceedings contending that the Petitioner cannot be dispossessed by the Respondent/decree holder. By the impugned order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karjat dated 30th March, 2010, the Application at Exhibit 51 has been rejected. 2. By the said impugned order dated 30th March, 2010 passed below Exhibit 51, the learned Trial Judge held that the 2 Petitioner/objector is not a stranger. The leaned Judge, therefore, directed that possession warrant be issue. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Brahmdeo Choudhary V/s. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Another [(1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 694]. He submitted that the Petitioner being a stranger to the decree, in view of the mandate of the Apex Court, it was the duty of the Executive Court to make adjudication in accordance with the Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submitted that without making any adjudication as regards the rights claimed by the Petitioner, the Executive Court directed that a warrant be issued. He submitted that the issue of the rights claimed by the Petitioner will have to be decided in the execution application. He submitted that as the Petitioner is in possession of the property, he could not have been dispossessed without holding an adjudication. 3. I have considered the submissions. The order of 3 possession relates to the premises of a hotel. In the Application made by the Petitioner it is stated that the Petitioner is a partnership firm constituted under Deed of Partnership dated 23rd September, 1996. The Petitioner claims on the basis of an agreement dated 25th September, 1996 executed by a partner of the hotel in favour of the Petitioner. 4. The Deed of Partnership is placed on record. The name of the partners of the Petitioner are disclosed as one Mr. Rohinton Khodaram Irani and Smt. Shahnaz Yezdi Irani. It is not in dispute that the said Rohinton Khodaram Irani is a Judgment debtor and the other partner of the Petitioner is the wife of one Yezdi, who is a brother of the said Rohinton. The said Yazdi is also a Judgment debtor. The agreement dated 25th September, 1996 relied upon by the Petitioner is an agreement by which the firm M/s. Cecil Hotel had appointed the Petitioner as a caterer to look after the catering services in the hotel. Perusal of the Application made by the Petitioner shows that no specific right in respect of the suit property has been claimed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims to have been put in possession on the basis of 4 the agreement dated 25th September, 1996 by which he was appointed as a caterer to look after catering services to the customers of the Hotel. The Respondent is entitled to possession of the property of the hotel Cecil under the decree put to execution. The entry of the Petitioner as a caterer is based on the Agreement admittedly executed by a Judgment debtor. As the Petitioner has not claimed any specific right in respect of the suit property except for claiming possession under the aforesaid agreement, no fault can be found with the Trial Court for not holding an inquiry. No case for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. [A.S. OKA, J.]