SUBHASH BADI, J, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH this matter was posted for orders, it was understood that the same would be heard for final disposal. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is against the order dated 23. 12. 2006 passed against the obstructer, rejecting the objection raised in the execution of the decree. Obstructer is the appellant. ( 3 ) THE appellant obstructer in telegraphic language has stated that, the decree holder had filed HRC No. 10501/90 and the decree holder and the judgment debtor in order to defraud the obstructer entered into lease agreement dated 11. 1. 1988 as per Ex. P. 5 produced in H. R. C. NO. 10501/90. On 22. 8. 1994 HRC 10501/90 was allowed with cost. The judgment debtor was directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule premises. On 28. 9. 1994, HRRP no. 959/94 and HRRP No. 1251/1994 were filed by the obstructer against the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor and the said hrrps. were decided in his favour. Thereafter, on 20. 2. 2000, one siddanna, P. A. Holder promised the obstructer that he would give Rs. 10,00,000/- and the damage incurred by the obstructer and only then, the obstructer can hand over vacant possession. Since HRC 10501/ 90 was dismissed on 9. 2. 2000, his family relationship is ruined by the decree holder and her husband and the judgment debtor mother. On 19. 10. 2005, HRRP 269/2000 filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor and the obstructer was abated. Judgment debtor and the obstructer are not in talking terms for long time. There were several police complaints, original suit, partition notices and the obstructer is sending rents regularly to the decree holder from the beginning and including on 5/12/2006. On 21/11/2005, decree holder sent a notice to the judgment debtor. On 2. 12. 2005, judgment debtor sent a reply to the notice informing about the HRC 10501/90 and about several litigations. On 10. 1. 2006 rejoinder was sent by decree holder's advocate mentioning the schedule of the shop. On 13. 1. 2006, decree holder gave power of Attorney to her son. On 16. 1. 2006, s. C. No. 73/2006 was filed against the judgment debtor- (mother of the obstructer ). On 24/2/2006, defendant filed written statement. On 3/7/2006, documents were marked. On 18/7/2006, PW. 1 was cross-examined. On 2/8/2006 with the permission PW. On 13. 1. 2006, decree holder gave power of Attorney to her son. On 16. 1. 2006, s. C. No. 73/2006 was filed against the judgment debtor- (mother of the obstructer ). On 24/2/2006, defendant filed written statement. On 3/7/2006, documents were marked. On 18/7/2006, PW. 1 was cross-examined. On 2/8/2006 with the permission PW. 1 was examined and cross-examined. Defendant filed affidavit. But, she could not come to court, as she was 80 years old and bed ridden. On 14/9/2006 advocate for defendant produced one lease agreement dated 1/1/1981 marked as R3. On 5/9/2006, certificate of posting of rent of Rs. 325/- was sent by the obstructer to the decree holder and the Trial Court without considering these materials, has passed the order. ( 4 ) THE objection of the obstructer was opposed by the decree holder, Decree holder's case is that, she had filed HRC 10501/90 under Section 21 (1) (h) (f) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The said HRC was allowed and against which, HRRP Nos. 959/94 and 1251/94 were filed. The said HRRPs were allowed and the matter was remanded. Though on 9. 2. 2000, HRC 10501/90 was dismissed, however held that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the decree holder and the judgment debtor. The HRC court also held that, the obstructer is none other than the son of the judgment debtor. In the HRC proceedings, the obstructer was made as a 2nd respondent. In the said proceedings, a point, as to the jural relationship between the decree holder and the judgment debtor was framed and the HRC court considering the evidence including the alleged lease deed alleged to have been executed by the landlord in favour of the obstructer which was marked as Ex. R3 held that, the decree holder and the judgment debtor are the landlord and tenant and the obstructer who was 2nd respondent in the said proceedings is the son assisting the mother. The HRC court also held that, the obstructer is not a subtenant, but he is the son of the main tenant. He cannot be treated as sub-tenant. However, on merit, the HRC court dismissed the HRC petition as the land-lord failed to make out a case under Section 21 (1) (h) (f) and (p) of the Rent Control Act. Against the said order, the land-lord filed HRRP 269/2000. He cannot be treated as sub-tenant. However, on merit, the HRC court dismissed the HRC petition as the land-lord failed to make out a case under Section 21 (1) (h) (f) and (p) of the Rent Control Act. Against the said order, the land-lord filed HRRP 269/2000. This court in view of the provisions of Section 70 (2) (c) of the Rent Act, 1999 held that, HRC proceedings are not maintainable, as the suit schedule property is used for non-residential purpose and the measurement exceeds 14 square meters. ( 5 ) IN pursuance of the order passed by this court, the land-lady (decree holder) filed a Small Cause case in Sc 73/2006 against the judgment debtor alone. The Small Cause Court decreed the suit and the land-lady (decree holder) filed the present execution case. In the execution, the executing court rejected the application of the obstructer filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC inter alia observing as under: "i. A. filed by the decree holder for break opening the lock with police help and issue delivery warrant against the JDR. The applicant appeared as Objector is no other than the son of the JDR, in view of the observation made by the court on the original side, considering his application now as objector will not arise. The observations was made even about his objections on the original side accordingly having regard to the relationship of objector with JDR being the mother and son, the counsel appearing for the defendant on the original side had submitted that the defendant is colluding with the plaintiff against her son but the son had not appeared on the original side. The advocate had submitted after filing the vakalath for the defendant against the defendant in the matter, which was observed by the court. Now the same advocate is appearing for the son as objector. So in the light of these things and in view of observation in the body of the Judgment in SC 73/2006, d. D. 22. 09. 2006 considering these I. As. will not arise. Hence, rejected. Issue delivery warrant against JDR with police help. Call on 20. 01. 2007. " ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the obstructer submitted that, he is a tenant under the decree holder and he is not a party in SC No. 73/06 and the decree is not binding on him. 2006 considering these I. As. will not arise. Hence, rejected. Issue delivery warrant against JDR with police help. Call on 20. 01. 2007. " ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the obstructer submitted that, he is a tenant under the decree holder and he is not a party in SC No. 73/06 and the decree is not binding on him. He also submitted that, he had filed a suit in O. S. No. 10505/94 seeking declaration declaring that he is a tenant under a decree holder and submitted that, same was dismissed by the trial Court and he filed an appeal in RFA 622/96 and this court by judgment and decree dated 10. 10. 1996 dismissed the RFA with an observation that, if the plaintiff i. e. , the obstructer claims any independant right in himself, he can file an application under Order 21 rule 97 obstructing the decree that would be executed against him. In para 9 of the judgment in RFA 622/99 it is observed that, "if really, the plaintiff is in occupation of the premises as a tenant and if he has got subsequent interest, he could have obstructed the delivery of possession and could have sought such relief as provided under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. It is always open to him to take up this defence and if such defence is taken, it is for the executing court to decide his right as settled by the Division Bench of this court in M/s PRAMOUND industries vs. CM. MALLIGA. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that, in view of the findings of this court in RFA 622/1996, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected his application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. Further submitted that, there is a serious dispute between himself and the judgment debtor his mother. He also submitted that, one Siddanna had promised that, he would give Rs. 10,00,000/- and also damage for vacating the suit schedule property and he is none other than the husband of decree holder. Parties made available their records for court's perusal. ( 8 ) THE facts, which are not in dispute are, the decree holder earlier had filed HRC No. 10501/90 under Section 21 (1) (h) (f) and (p) of the Rent Control Act. The said HRC was allowed on 22. 8. Parties made available their records for court's perusal. ( 8 ) THE facts, which are not in dispute are, the decree holder earlier had filed HRC No. 10501/90 under Section 21 (1) (h) (f) and (p) of the Rent Control Act. The said HRC was allowed on 22. 8. 1994 against which HRRP 959/94 and HRRP 1251/94 were filed before this court. This court allowed both the HRRPs on 28. 9. 1994 and remanded the matter. On remand by order dated 9. 2. 2000, the HRC was dismissed. While dismissing the HRC, the HRC court framed following points for determination: i) Whether the petitioner proves that, there is a relationship between herself and the 1st respondent as land lord and tenant in respect of petition schedule premises? ii) Whether the petitioner proves that the 2nd respondent is a sub-lessee or tress passer? ( 9 ) PETITIONER in the said HRC proceeding was a decree holder. 1st respondent is a judgment debtor and the 2nd respondent in the said proceeding was the obstructer in the present case. In the said HRC, rw. 1 is none other than the obstructer. The HRC court while considering the point No. 1 observed as under: "on perusal of the records it discloses that, so far as the relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is concerned, there is no dispute that the 1st respondent is the tenant and the petitioner is the land-lord in respect of the petition schedule premises. But it is the specific case of the 2nd respondent that, the 1st respondent is none other than the mother of the 2nd respondent. Due to some family misunderstanding between 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent and due to ill advice of some of the relatives, the 1st respondent started giving false complaint againt the 2nd respondent and started playing fraud on the 2nd respondent. " ( 10 ) ON consideration of the evidence led by the obstructer as rw. 1 in the said HRC proceedings and on consideration of the documents including the lease deed which was marked as Ex. R. 3 in the said proceedings, the HRC court arrived at a findings; "anyhow on perusal of the material, it discloses that, the 2nd respondent is claiming his right through his mother. 1 in the said HRC proceedings and on consideration of the documents including the lease deed which was marked as Ex. R. 3 in the said proceedings, the HRC court arrived at a findings; "anyhow on perusal of the material, it discloses that, the 2nd respondent is claiming his right through his mother. Further, the materials, which are available in this case clearly established that, there is a relationship between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the answer to the point No. 1 in affirmative. " ( 11 ) WHEN the HRC court also considered the issue as to whether the 2nd respondent who is obstructer in this case is a sub-tenant or not, on appreciation of the evidence, the HRC court gave a finding that the 2nd respondent is none other than the the son of the 1st respondent and there is lease agreement between himself and the petitioner dated 1. 1. 1981 which has marked as Ex. R3. Further, the deposed that, in view of some settlement, he got issued cheque for rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner. Firstly, the petitioner agreed for settlement, but subsequently, she refused to accept the same. In the said proceedings it is also found that; "on careful perusal of the provisions of Section 21 (1) (h) (f) and (p) of the Rent Control Act, it is very clear that, so far as non residential premises are concerned, for the the purpose of sub-letting, before raising presumption of subleasing, the court to satisfy that the tenant have obtained consent in writing from the landlord to occupy the whole or any part of the premises. " ( 12 ) IN the instant case, the 2nd respondent is none other than the son of the 1st respondent and also held that, the 2nd respondent is sitting in the shop and assisting the 1st respondent in the business and it does not constitute sub-tenancy. ( 13 ) THE obstructer himself filed a suit in O. S. No. 10505/94. In the said suit, he has sought for declaration that he is a tenant under the decree holder. Said suit was dismissed. Thereafter, he had filed RFA 622/96 before this court, and this Court also dismissed RFA confirming the findings of the Trial Court. ( 13 ) THE obstructer himself filed a suit in O. S. No. 10505/94. In the said suit, he has sought for declaration that he is a tenant under the decree holder. Said suit was dismissed. Thereafter, he had filed RFA 622/96 before this court, and this Court also dismissed RFA confirming the findings of the Trial Court. However, the observation is made that, if the obstructer is claiming to be a subsequent tenant or subsequent rights are created, it is for him to file application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC for adjudication of his relief. ( 14 ) JUDGMENT debtor is none other than the mother of the obstructer. The HRC court has given a finding that, there is no sub-tenancy between the judgment debtor and the obstructer. He is only assisting as a son and it does not constitute a sub-tenancy. Further, categorical finding has been given by the HRC court that, the judgment debtor is the tenant of the suit schedule property. The document sought to be relied by the obstructer, is a lease deed, which was also marked in HRC proceedings as Ex. R. 3. On consideration of the said documents, the hrc court held that, there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the decree holder and the judgment debtor and a categorial finding is given that the obstructer has occupied in the premises as son not as a sub-tenant. ( 15 ) ONCE it is found that, the obstructer is not claiming any independent right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and if there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between decree holder and the judgment debtor, and the obstructer being son of judgment debtor working with her, his application to obstruct the execution of the decree is not maintainable. ( 16 ) ORDER 21 Rule 97 of CPC is applicable to only person who is claiming independent right, title and interest and not under the judgment debtor. The HRRP filed by the landlord against the dismissal of his case under Section 21 (1) (h) (f) and (p) of the Rent Control Act, this court in view of the provision of Section 70 (2) (c) of the Rent Act had disposed of the HRRP. The HRRP filed by the landlord against the dismissal of his case under Section 21 (1) (h) (f) and (p) of the Rent Control Act, this court in view of the provision of Section 70 (2) (c) of the Rent Act had disposed of the HRRP. But as far as the relationship of the landlord and tenant arrived at by the HRC court, is neither set aside nor the obstructer did challenge the said finding. If the obstructer is claiming under the judgment debtor, he has no right to maintain the application and in addition to this, though the obstructer alleges that the judgment debtor is not in talking terms with him, however the judgment debtor as well as the obstructer are represented by the same advocate, the trial Court noticing the said fact held that these issues have already been decided and did not entertain the said application. Decree holder is fighting the litigation for eviction of tenant from 1990. Though the suit filed by the obstructer for declaration that he is tenant is dismissed and confirmed by this court. The obstructer without having any independent right and being the son of the judgment holder debtor and having suffered findings in HRC case, is still resisting the decree. I do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Executing court. Accordingly, appeal fails and the same is dismissed.