YAMIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the order of learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 28. 4. 1. 999. The petitioner has challenged certain portions of the order and she has herself argued the matter. Shri Mahesh Parihar, respondent No. 4, has not appeared though served while respondents No. 1 to 3 are represented through their counsel Shri J. Gehlot who has argued on behalf of these respondents.
(2.) THE controversy is very short. Petitioner-Premlata is an unmarried daughter of Ratanlal, respondent No. 1. She was living in a house situated in Pipli ka Chowk, Nagauri Mohalla, Jodhpur. THE house belongs to her grand father. She has rights in the property. She had exclusive possession of a room and kitchen in ground floor as also on a room on the first floor. THE petitioner has been in service and till 1993 used to send money to the respondents No. 1 to 3 and also used to spend money in order to maintain the property. THE respondents thereafter stopped accepting the money with the fear that if they continued to accept, the petitioner may claim the house. THEy wanted to dispossess her and ultimately in August, 1996 respondents No. 2 & 3 gave beatings to her and turned her out. Sec. 3 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act defines maintenance which includes residence. According to the petitioner the father was obliged to maintain her u/s. 20 (3) of the said Act and, therefore, she was entitled to stay in the house. She wanted a relief that she may continue her possession in the ancestral house till she marries. This petition was later on amended and her prayer is that possession on the property be restored and it may be ordered that she may not be thereafter dispossessed. THE petitioner has been resisted on various grounds. On 16. 5. 1998 the learned District Judge ordered the Sale Amin to restore the possession of the petitioner on the property. Thereafter respondent-Mahesh Parihar filed an application on 21. 5. 1998 alongwith a copy of stay order of a Court to the effect that he was a tenant in this property and he could not be dispossessed without due process of law. Thereafter he moved an application u/o. 21, R. 97 CPC raising a number of objections including the question of jurisdiction of the District Judge to hear this petition. It may also be stated that jurisdiction of the District Judge has been challenged even by the respondents No. 1 to 3 saying that it is the Family Court which has jurisdiction to decide such like applications. Learned District Judge after hearing the application of Mahesh Parihar which was resisted by the petitioner, ordered that the matter has to be inquird. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this revision petition. Petitioner-Premlata has submitted a bunch of 73 typed pages raising relevant/irrelevant points citing a number of authorities. Her reply to the application of Mahesh Parihar has been seen and the arguments of the petitioner as well as of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 were heard. What the learned District Judge did was that he ordered that the objection of Mahesh Parihar may be inquired into. This is supported by Supreme Court citation Shreenath & Anr. vs. Rajesh & Ors. (1 ). The contention of the petitioner was that Mahesh Parihar was a person who in connivance with the co-respondents has filed this objection petition. The reply of respondents to the application of Mahesh Parihar was that he was inducted as a tenant w. e. f. 1. 11. 1997. It further states that Mahesh Parihar refused to vacate the premises. It was prayed on behalf of Ratanlal that petition of Premlata Parihar be dismissed or objector Mahesh Parihar may be given opportunity to lead evidence. This is objected by the petitioner saying that Mahesh Parihar has been brought as objector to resist her claim so that the matter may be further delayed. Even Mahesh Parihar has alleged that the respondents alongwith some other persons have planned to dispossess him from the property which was let out to him. Presently, 1 am not concerned with these allegations and counter allegations because it is a pure and simple question of law whether the inquiry should be made or not. Order 21, R. 97 CPC is as follows:- " Order 21, Rule 97.-Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.- (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. (2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. "
(3.) THE citation relied by the learned counsel for the respondent-Shreenath & Anr. 's (supra) lays down that in Rule 97 expression `any person' will include any person connected with the decree or any person holding independent right. He has not to go for a fresh suit for adjudication and u/o. 21, R. 97 CPC objection will be taken by a person holding possession on his own right. He will not have to face the dispossession. Mahesh Parihar, as admitted by the respondents No. 1 to 3, is a tenant in the property. He has filed a suit that he may not be dispossessed without due process of law and obtained stay from a competent Court. His claim has to be decided on merits in this case. It is something different that the learned District Judge may come to the conclusion whether he has jurisdiction to decide the main petition of Smt. Premlata or not. But the claim of Mahesh Parihar has to be investigated. Much has been said about Mahesh Parihar by the petitioner as Mahesh Parihar is said to be an employee of the High Court. During the inquiry the District Judge may look into whether Mahesh Parihar has a genuine case in view of the fact that he might be claiming house rent allowance from his employer giving details of his residence in the application to grant house rent allowance. That may be summoned during the inquiry if the Judge inquiring matter so decides to see the genuineness of the claim of Shri Mahesh Parihar. In view of above discussion, the petitioner's contention that no inquiry should be made, is of no help to her and the revision petition has no force. It is hereby dismissed. However, the learned District Judge is directed to decide the petition of Premlata at the earliest. No orders as to costs. . ;