SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The Court : The appeal arises out of an order allowing a petition under Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code in respect of a portion of a decretal premises.
(2.) Initially, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the landlord under whom the petitioner claimed had also applied under Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code but had not pursued the matter and allowed it to be dismissed for default. Such order was carried in appeal. The Appellate Court, by its order of July 31, 2017, noticed that the independent right of the appellant, if any, had not been adjudicated upon. In such circumstances, the order impugned dated July 11, 2017 was set aside and the petition under Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code was restored before the interlocutory Court for its adjudication in accordance with law. The petition has now been allowed by an order dated January 4, 2018. The fivepage order contains a page and a half of averments set out from one of the affidavits and the exercise of adjudication is evident only from the following: "The said averments do not show that there has been an attornment of tenancy in favour of the decree-holder. The lease deed itself provided that tenants and/or occupiers of the premises in question shall pay the rents and/or occupation charges to the Chopras so long as the lease is in existence. If anyone has paid any rents or occupation charges to the Chopras, that may be at his own risk and peril, but that does not permit the decree-holder to execute the decree against those occupiers and tenants against whom the Mitras admittedly had not taken any steps nor filed any suit for eviction either on the ground of default or sub-letting. "Since the decree does decide the right, title or interest of the Mitras vis-a-vis the Shaws and the other occupants claiming under the Shaws, the decree in favour of the Mitras against the Chopras cannot be used as a tool to evict the lawful occupants. Under such circumstances, it is declared that the decree is executable against the present applicant in this proceeding. This order may prevent the decree-holder to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. "GA No.1904 of 2017 is allowed."
(3.) It is elementary that a petition under Order 21, Rule 97 or 99 of the Code requires protracted adjudication, where the merits of the petitioner's claim to the property and the decree-holder's right to obtain possession thereof need to be gone into. No fresh suit is maintainable by either party. By virtue of Rule 103, the order of adjudication is elevated to the status of a decree. In terms of Rule 101 of Order 21 of the Code, "All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the court .." The relevant court is, by Rule 101, conferred with the jurisdiction to decide all such questions such that a separate suit on such matters need be filed.;