JUDGMENT R. N. Prasad, J. - This application has been filed against the order dated 28.11.1997 passed in Misc. Case No. 16 of 1992 whereby it has been held that the decree in Eviction case No. 1 of 1984 has become infructuous and is not executable against applicant-opposite party no. 1. 2. The petitioners tiled a suit for evicition against opposite party no. 2. Opposite party no. 1 filed a petition for intervention which was allowed. Opposite party no. 1 has also filed title suit no. 76 of 1983 for specific performance of contract against the petitioners. Both the suits were tried together. The suit filed by opposite party no. 1 for specific performance of contract was dismissed against which First Appeal No. 33 of 1989 was filed before this court and is pending for disposal. The evicition suit filed by the petitioners was decreed against opposite party no. 2, who was defendant no. 1 in the suit. Execution Case No. 7 of 1988 was levied by the petitioners. In the said execution case opposite party no. 1 filed a petition that the execution case is not maintainable. On the said petition Misc. Case No. 16 of 1992 was registered. The court held that the decree in eviction case has become infructuous and, the decree is not executable against opposite party no. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court has committed error in holding that the decree in eviction suit has become infructuous. He pointed out that the eviction suit has been decreed against defendant no. 1 i.e. opposite party no. 2 and as such it cannot be said that-the decree has become infructuous. He further pointed out that in view of Section 12 of the B. B. C. Act the decree is enforceable against all persons, who are in occupation of the suit premises. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 submitted that there was no decree against opposite party no. 1 and as such the court is justified in passing the order that the same is not executable against opposite party no. 1. He also pointed out that Section 12 of the B.B.C. Act has no application in the case. However, no one appeared for opposite party no. 2 inspite of service of notice. 4. 1 and as such the court is justified in passing the order that the same is not executable against opposite party no. 1. He also pointed out that Section 12 of the B.B.C. Act has no application in the case. However, no one appeared for opposite party no. 2 inspite of service of notice. 4. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on record it is manifest from the judgment, Annexure 1, that the eviction suit was decree only against opposite party no. 2, who was defendant no. 1 in the suit. The executing court has to execute the decree as it is. It cannot go behind the decree. Section 12 of the B.B.C. Act says that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, where the interest of the tenant, in any premises is determined for any reason, whatsoever, and any order is made by the court under this Act, for recovery of possession of such premises, the order shall be binding on all persons, who may be in occupation of the premises and vacant possession thereof shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such persons thereform provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who has an independent title to such a: premises or to tenant who has been inducted with the express written permission of the landlord himself personally. According to the petitioners in view of Sect inn 12 of the Act the decree is also enforceable against opposite party no. 1. It is pertinent to mention herein that though the section has over-ridding effect to the provisions of the other Act but it clearly states the interest of the tenant. The tenant has been defined under Section 2 (h) of the Act. The details about the tenants have been enumerated in the said provision. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decree shall be enforceable even against the person who is not a tenant under the provision of this Act. Furthermore, the claim of opposite party no. 1 was that he was living in the suit premises in his own right i.e. on the basis of the agreement for sale. It would be relevant to mention herein that he filed a suit for specific performance of contract. Furthermore, the claim of opposite party no. 1 was that he was living in the suit premises in his own right i.e. on the basis of the agreement for sale. It would be relevant to mention herein that he filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The suit, no doubt, has been dismissed against which appeal is pending and as such he cannot be held to be a tenant in the suit premises and the proviso to Section 12 of the Act will apply in this case and as such the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in my view, has no leg to stand. Thus, this application is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the decree for eviction has been passed only against opposite party no. 2. The decree can be executed only against opposite party no. 2. It is needless to say that if the judgment debtor has already been evicted from the suit premises or he has vacated the suit premises, there shall not be any need for execution of the decree.