Judgment:- This Revision Petition arises out of an application filed by the petitioner for re-delivery of possession of the property under Order 21, rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent obtained an order for eviction under the Madras Rent Control Act against his tenants and in execution of that decree for eviction, the petitioner was dispossessed of a portion of the permises in question. The petitioner’s complaint is that, despite his objection, the amin dispossessed him removing and throwing away his samans which he had kept in the premises. In his application for restoration, the petitioner stated that he was occupying the premises as a tenant under the landlord and that, as he was not made a party to the eviction proceedings he was not liable to be evicted in execution of the decree for eviction passed against other persons. The respondent filed a bald objection statement in which he merely denied the actual dispossession. It is significant that the respondent did not state in what capacity or right the petitioner was in possession of the premises when the amin dispossessed him. One thing that is perfectly clear from the record is that the petitioner was in possession of the portion of the premises as claimed by him and he was actually dispossessed by the amin who removed and threw away the petitioner’s samans. This conduct of the amin, I am told, formed the subject-matter of some other enquiry before the learned District Munsif and some decision has been rendered therein. We are not concerned with that enquiry. The petitioner has failed before the District Munsif, the appellate authority and the Court of revision. As the perspective of approach of the authorities referred to above is clearly erroneous and as I am satisfied that they have misdirected themselves, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order and directing restoration of the property to the petitioner It is settled law that a decree for possession obtained against a tenant can be straightaway executed as against the property in the hands of subtenant even though the sub-tenant was not a party to the proceeding in which the order for eviction was passed. It is sufficient to refer to the Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Yusuf v. Jyotishchandra Banerji1. It is sufficient to refer to the Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Yusuf v. Jyotishchandra Banerji1. In that case it was held that a sub-tenant of a lessee is not a necessary party in a suit for ejectment brought by the superior landlord and that when a landlord obtains a decree for ejectment on forfeiture or determination of the lease by notice against his tenant, the latter’s subtenants in actual possession of the premises are "persons bound by the decree within the meaning of Order 21, rule 35 Civil Procedure Code This statement of the law has been approved by the Supreme Court in Gurushiddaswami v. D. M. D. Jain Sabha2. The landlord in this case however did not accept the position that the petitioner was a sub-tenant occupying the premises At the same time, the petitioner claimed that he was a tenant directly under the landlord. If the petitioner’s case that he is a tenant under the landlord is not established, the tenant would only be a trespasser in view of the fact that the landlord did not and would not accept the position of the petitioner as a sub-tenant in the premises.. In either case it will be clear that the possession of the petitioner will be on his own account and not on behalf of the judgment-debtor within the meaning of Order 21, rule 101 It must be noticed that in a summary enquiry for restoration of possession, a person who has been dispossessed has got only to establish that he was in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some persons other than the judgment-debtor. In view of the halting position taken up by the respondent, I have no doubt that the petitioner has satisfied the conditions of Order 21, rule 101, for obtaining re-deliverey of the property. This of course does not involve any adjudication of other rights and obligations which may subsist as between the parties. The respondent’s right as against the petitioner treating him as a tenant direct under the respondent or as a trespasser do not form the subject-matter of the present adjudication. The respondent may pursue his own remedies, as he may be adivsed in appropriate proceedings. The Revision Petition is allowed with costs. R.M. ------------------ Revision allowed.