Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.;— In this case on 29.1.2013 following order was passed on the order sheet. "Heard Shri Zafar Nayer, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is a formal party. Today a Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has filed typed copy of a judgment dated 16.7.2012 and copy of judgment of the Supreme Court. Order reserved. Put up for delivery of order on 1.2.2013. Until 1.2.2013 dis-possession shall not take place." The dispute between petitioner and respondent no.1 revolves around a shop in tenancy occupation of respondent no.2 Rakesh Bajpai. Petitioner is transferee of part of a bigger accommodation from Smt. Bhagwan Dei through sale deed dated 16.9.1988. The remaining portion of the bigger premises is in the ownership of respondent no.1 through Will from Smt. Bhagwan Dei. The precise dispute is as to whether the shop in dispute is included in the sold portion or not. In the shop in dispute respondent no.2 Rakesh Bajpai is the tenant since before 1988. Respondent no.1 had filed suit for eviction against respondent no.2 in the form of S.C.C. Suit No.90 of 2007. The suit was decreed. Revision filed against the said decree being Civil Revision No.346 of 2012 Rakesh Bajpai vs.Sangam Chaursiya was dismissed by this court on 16.7.2012. Thereafter Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.33820 of 2012 was filed before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 23.11.2012 by the following order. "Heard Mr. Z.M. Naiyer, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Special leave petition is dismissed." Thereafter execution application in the form of Execution Case No.2 of 2012 was filed by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2. From the perusal of the judgment of this court dated 16.7.2012 (Supra) it is lear that the only point raised was that plaintiff of the suit Sangam Chaurasiya was not the owner landlord of the shop in dispute and petitioner of the instant writ petition Suresh Agarwal was the landlord owner of the same. It is not disputed that the tenant was inducted by Smt. Bhagwan Dei. In the suit the tenant filed application under Section 23 of P.S.C.C. Act stating that complicated question of title was involved. It is not disputed that the tenant was inducted by Smt. Bhagwan Dei. In the suit the tenant filed application under Section 23 of P.S.C.C. Act stating that complicated question of title was involved. The said application was rejected which order was maintained in revision by this court. Present petitioner Suresh Agarwal himself filed an application firstly through his attorney and secondly by himself. Both the applications were rejected. The order of rejection of impleadment application of Suresh Agarwal present petitioner was affirmed by this court through order dated 8.10.2010 dismissing Civil Revision No.93 of 2009. In the execution present petitioner filed objections under Order 21 Rule 29 and 97 C.P.C. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No.94 of 2012 and was rejected on 24.1.2013 by J.S.C.C./Additional District Judge, Court No.5 Kanpur Nagar. Thereafter the Executing court passed an order on 24.1.2013 in Execution Case No.2 of 2012 issuing parwana for possession. Petitioner has also filed Original Suit No.1825 of 2012 against the respondents on 18.9.2012. Sri Sangam Chaurasiya is respondent no.1 in the said suit. The prayer in this writ petition is that respondent no.1 may be restrained from dis-possessing the petitioner from the premises in dispute under the garb of decree passed on 4.4.2012 passed in Suit No.90 of 2007 in Execution Case No.2 of 2012. The second prayer is that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur where Original Suit No.1825 of 2012 is pending may be commanded to decide the application for interim injunction immediately after securing report of Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Zafar Naiyer has argued that neither in the order rejecting petitioner's impleadment application in the eviction suit nor in the order rejecting his application under Order 21 Rule 29 and 97 C.P.C. the main controversy as to whether shop in dispute falls in the portion purchased by the petitioner in 1988 or not has been decided. It has further been argued that impleadment application was rejected in the eviction suit on the ground that in a suit between landlord and tenant rival claimant of the ownership was not a necessary party and application Order 21 Rule 29 and 97 C.P.C. was rejected on the ground that impleadment application of the petitioner had been rejected and petitioner was only helping the tenant to delay the execution of the decree. Shri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has argued that petitioner has been put forward by the tenant-respondent no.2 to delay the execution. He has also argued that Shri Zafar Naiyer, learned counsel who is appearing for the petitioner in this writ petition appeared before the Supreme Court for the tenant as is evident from the above quoted order of the Supreme Court dated 23.11.2012. Shri Bhargawa has also agreed that in view of Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. the suit of the petitioner is not maintainable. Learned counsel for petitioner referred to Rule 104 of the same order. I do not consider it an appropriate stage to decide these rival contentions. Admittedly petitioner is not in actual possession of the shop in question. He claims to be in possession through tenant respondent no.2. Even if tenant is evicted and possession is delivered to respondent no.1 the only possible loss which may be caused to the petitioner, in case ultimately he is held to be the owner of the property in dispute will be of loss of rent for which appropriate relief may be added in the plaint through amendment. However, as respondent no.1 has appeared in the suit (O.S. No.1825 of 2012) hence there is no reason for the trial court to delay disposal of the temporary injunction application. It is reported that 15.2.2013 is the next date fixed in the suit. If the petitioner does not insist on issuance of commission at this stage then temporary injunction application might be considered on the said date or on the next date. However, if petitioner presses for inspection by Advocate Commissioner then said prayer may be considered on the next date. In that eventuality consideration of temporary injunction application will have to be deferred. I do not consider any occasion to stay the execution proceedings however, it is directed that respondent no.1 after getting possession of the shop in dispute from respondent no.2 in execution shall neither alienate the shop in dispute to any one nor shall let that out to any one until decision of temporary injunction application in the suit in question. It is further directed that till then no proceedings for allotment or release of the shop shall be entertained by Rent Control & Eviction Officers. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. _____________