ORDER Arya, J. -- 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 20.1.2015 passed by the Executing Court in MJC No.01/2015 rejecting the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC by applicant/appellant Manish Sharma. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that Civil Suit No.4-A/2006 was filed on 25.6.1984 by respondent-Mohan Kishore against Smt. Vimla Devi, wd/o Late Shri Durga Prasad, and four others; sons of Late Durga Prasad, for recovery of possession and permanent injunction and mesne profit in relation to suit property; first and second floor of House No.47/455 situated in Madhoganj, Lashkar, Gwalior, marked with red ink in the attached map. The suit was decreed on 27.7.2007 addressing upon issues 2(a) and 2 (b), which read as under :- ^^¼2½¼v½ D;k nf{k.k rjQ dh iwjh nhokj Hkh oknh ds fgLls esa vkbZ Fkh \ ¼c½ D;k oknh ukckfyx gksus ds dkj.k vkSj mldh ek¡ fo/kok gksus ds dkj.k] nqxkZizlkn dks izFke eafty ds pkj dejs] xqly[kkuk] ik[kkuk vkSj thuk esa fuokl djus dh lqfo/kk crkSj yk;lsUlh ds nh xbZ Fkh \ Plaintiff/respondent was held entitled for possession of the suit premises from defendant. Six months’ time was granted to defendant to hand over possession without causing any damage to the suit property. As such, Late Durgaprasad was held to be in possession of the suit premises as licensee of respondent/plaintiff and, therefore, his LRs being licensee were directed to hand over vacant possession, as plaintiff was held entitled for recovery of possession by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 3. Applicant filed an application under Order XXI rule 97 read with section 151 CPC contending that the suit property, i.e. room on the second floor of the house in question and latrine and bath room on the first floor, was of the ownership and possession of Late Durgaprasad. The grandfather of applicant, namely, Late Sitaram had taken the aforesaid suit premises on rent from Durgaprasad on monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and thereafter, the tenancy had continued in favour of successors of Late Sitaram and at present the applicant being the successor continues to be in possession of the aforesaid premises as a tenant on the strength of the original tenancy. The applicant being a tenant of the suit premises, he ought to have been made a party to the suit. The applicant being a tenant of the suit premises, he ought to have been made a party to the suit. That was not done and the decree of eviction has been obtained behind his back, though he is in possession of the suit property. 4. Respondent/plaintiff Mohan Kishore filed reply and denied that the applicant is in possession of the suit premises as a tenant, instead pleaded that applicant has no right and interest in the suit property. On his own saying applicant claims to be the tenant of Late Durgaprasad and does not assert any independent right to be in possession. As such, the decree passed against the heirs of Late Sitaram is binding upon the applicant and, therefore, the application under Order XXI rule 97 CPC has no application. It is also submitted that in the identical situation one Rajesh Chaudhary had styled himself to be the tenant of Late Durgaprasad and filed objection under Order XXI rule 97 CPC before the trial Court during the execution proceedings of the same judgment and decree in question. The application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 24.9.2014. The first appeal in the High Court vide First Appeal No.209/2014 (Rajesh Chaudhary v. Mohan Kishore and others) was also dismissed on 12.12.2014. Hence, under such circumstances, such similar application on the same terms cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed. 5. The Executing Court, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances has rejected the application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the applicant is in possession of the suit premises as a tenant and he falls in the category of ‘any person’: the term used in Order XXI rule 97 CPC, but was not made party to the suit, therefore, the Executing Court was bound to decide his application under Order XXI rule 97 CPC after affording opportunity to lead evidence. 7. Admittedly, applicant, as pleaded in para 1 of his application under Order XXI rule 97 CPC, has claimed to be in possession of the suit premises by virtue of tenancy created in favour of his grandfather Late Sitaram by Late Durgaprasad, therefore, he styles himself as licensee of Late Durgaprasad or his LRs. Late Sitaram was held to be the licensee and not the owner of the suit premises. Late Sitaram was held to be the licensee and not the owner of the suit premises. In the suit, the suit property has been held to be of the ownership of plaintiff Mohan Kishore and, therefore, held entitled to recover possession from the heirs of Late Sitaram. As such, the applicant/appellant has not claimed any independent right in the suit premises against the decree for possession under execution, therefore, he is not entitled to resist the decree by seeking adjudication of his objection under Order XXI rule 97 CPC. Shreenath and another v. Rajesh and others, [ AIR 1998 SC 1827 ], referred to. Likewise, in the case of H. Seshadri v. K.R. Natarajan and another, [ (2003)10 SCC 449 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 has held as under :- “13. For the purpose of considering an application under Order 21 rules 99 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure what was required to be considered was as to whether the applicant herein claimed a right independent of the judgment-debtor or not. A person claiming through or under the judgment-debtor may be dispossessed in execution of a decree passed against the judgment-debtor but not when he is in possession of the premises in question in his own independent right or otherwise.” 8. Therefore, in the light of the settled law, the trial Court has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction while rejecting the application under Order XXI rule 97 CPC filed by the applicant. That apart, similar application filed at the instance of one Rajesh Chaudhary styling himself to be the tenant of Late Dugraprasad was rejected vide order dated 24.9.2014 and first appeal arising therefrom was also dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2014. 9. In the light of aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has acted in accordance with law and accordingly the first appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed.