1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.280 OF 2009 Sayyed Shahajamoddin S/o Nijamoddin ... Appellant. Versus Mahadeo S/o Goroba Hale and others ... Respondent. ... Mr.Milind M.Patil (Beedkar), advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.N.Irpatgire, advocdate for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 13.11.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred by original objection Petitioner. His objection petition in course of execution of possession 2 decree was over-ruled by the Executing Court. He preferred an appeal vide RCA No.81/2008 which came to be dismissed. 3. The dispute is in respect of a house property. The Respondent No.1 (DH) had filed suit bearing RCS No.401/1987 for partition and separate possession in respect of house property bearing Municipal No.2/222 situated in Shivaji Chowk area at Latur. According to the appellant he was inducted in possession of the part of the premises by original defendant No.1 as a tenant. He is in possession of the shop as a tenant of original defendant No.1. He could not be evicted without following due procedure as contemplated under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. His possession is required to be protected. The suit was decreed on 26.2.1993. The decree has attained finality. In course of execution of the decree, the suit shop fell to the share of the decree holder i.e. the plaintiff. 4. Heard learned counsel. 3 5. It is pertinent to notice that the suit RCS No.401/87 was filed much before the creation of tenancy rights in favour of the appellant. The suit was decreed about eight (8) months before induction of the appellant in the premises as a tenant of the suit shop. He was not a party to the litigation before the trial Court as well as before the appellate Court. However, he is claiming his rights through one of the judgment debtor i.e. defendant No.1. Once it is noticed that he is claiming his rights through one of the judgment debtor then he may be regarded to have stepped into the shoes of the judgment debtor. He can not be treated as stranger to the decree. The obstructionist proceedings contemplated U/o XXI Rule 97 of the C.P.C. can be considered only if the obstruction is offered by a stranger. The appellant is covered by Section 47 of the C.P.C. The provision of Section 47 of the C.P.C. clearly shows that all questions relating to the delivery of possession of property to a purchaser or a representative are required to be treated as questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. It is also explicit 4 that such questions are required to be determined by the Executing Court and not by a separate suit. In other words, separate suit for ejectment of the appellant is not contemplated under sub-clause (1) of Section 47 of the C.P.C. It is argued that he acquired status of tenant and, therefore, there is bar to Section 47 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It is contended that since the decree was not registered, there was no prohibition in creating the tenancy rights in his favour. It is quite clear that the contesting defendant inducted the appellant, knowing well that the decree was passed against him, and perhaps with a view to create obstruction in the execution of the decree. The bar created by Section 47 would not be attracted in the present case inasmuch as the appellant can not be regarded as tenant qua the decree holder and he has entered into the shoes of the judgment debtor and, therefore, he himself is a judgment debtor without having any separate identity in respect of the tenancy rights. Considering these aspects, the concurrent findings of the Courts below need not be 5 disturbed in the Second Appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 6. At request of Mr.M.M.Patil (Beedkar), interim stay is continued for four (4) weeks. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa28009