Judgment 1. The tenants-defendants-judgement debtors, who are petitioners in this application, have challenged the order dated 4.8.99 passed in Eviction Execution Case no. 3/1995 by which the prayer of the petitioner to stay the further proceeding of the execution case under order XXI Rule 29 C.P.C. till the disposal of the T.S.no. 25/89 has been rejected. 2. Admitted facts are that the tenants petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of contract claiming to have been put them in possession after execution of the agreement. The said suit has been numbered as T.S.no. 52/1989. The decree holder-opposite parties filed a eviction suit being Eviction suit no. 17/1997 claiming that the defendants-judgement-debtors- petitioners were tenant and the court below found that there was relationship of the landlord and the tenant and the suit for eviction was decreed. The petitioners came to this court in Civil Revision no. 1935/97 wherein the judgement and decree was challenged apart from the other grounds on the ground that already there was an agreement of sale of the suit property by the landlord in their favour and unless the suit, which is pending, is decided no order in an eviction suit can be passed. This court held that no right is created in the property on the basis of the agreement of sale. In case the petitioners succeed in the suit they will be put in possession over the property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the tenant has been put in possession in pursuance of an agreement of sale the execution case in eviction suit should be stayed as they are protected by the doctrine of a part of performance. 4. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid submission for the reason that it was found by the lower court that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the suit has been decreed. The said finding has been upheld by the court. Unless the suit of specific performance of contract is decreed and the sale in pursuance of the same is executed they have no interest in the land. At this stage only assertion made on behalf of the defendants- petitioners that they were put in possession in pursuance of agreement of sale will not be sufficient to deny the fruits of the decree to the landlord. 5. At this stage only assertion made on behalf of the defendants- petitioners that they were put in possession in pursuance of agreement of sale will not be sufficient to deny the fruits of the decree to the landlord. 5. In my view, the court below has rightly rejected the prayer for staying the execution proceeding till the disposal of the suit for specific performance of contract. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision application and the same is dismissed.