Judgment :- 1. By consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioners herein have filed an application E.A. 539/93 before the Rent Controller, Gudiyatham, to transpose themselves as petitioners along with the petitioners 1 to 3 in E.P. 2/90 in RCOP 28/92. The respondents herein have filed the said R.C.O.P. 28/92 to evict the petitioners herein and an order of eviction had been passed. When the order of eviction was put in execution in E.P. 2/90 the petitioners filed the application to transpose themselves as petitioners in the Execution Petition on the ground that the first petitioner had purchased the undivided 1/6th snare in the property and as such they have become the co-owners they should be transposed as petitioners in the Execution Petition. 2. The Rent Controller had dismissed the said application by his order dated 5-1-94 against which the petitioners preferred an appeal R.C.A. 10/94. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 30-4-96. As against this, the present revision has been filed. 3. A perusal of the orders of the Court below reveals that only the registration copy of the sale deed dated 15-9-93 had been marked as Ex. P. 1. None of the parties were examined before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had purchased the property during the pendency of the execution proceedings and as such the purchase is affected by the principle of lis pendens and they cannot have any absolute title over the property. Further since no one concerned with the document has been examined, the same cannot be acted upon. The appellate authority also concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. 4. Admittedly the first petitioner alone had purchased the property. Even if the case of the petitioners is accepted, when the first petitioner had alone purchased the 1/6th share in the property, it is not known how the second petitioner also can be transposed as the petitioner. The order of eviction has been passed already in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 When the order of eviction was in force, it is not known under what condition the petitioner had purchased the property. The order of eviction has been passed already in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 When the order of eviction was in force, it is not known under what condition the petitioner had purchased the property. By merely purchasing the undivided 1/6th share, it may not be possible to transpose the petitioners in the execution petition which will amount to closing of the execution petition and make the order of eviction nugatory. If at all the petitioners want to establish their title and share, they have to file a suit for partition by surrendering possession to the owners, the respondent herein. It may not be open to the petitioner to continue in possession on the ground that they, have purchased the undivided 1/6th share in the property, when once they are admittedly the tenants originally. If the contention of the petitioners is accepted and they are transposed as petitioners in the execution petition, it will amount to make them as owners of the property and they may not pay the rent to the respondents. When once the petitioners are tenants admittedly by purchasing the undivided 1/6th share, it may be open to them to sit on the property without paying any rent to the owners of the property. There is no justification to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners. The order of the courts below are confirmed. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.