JUDGMENT Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- Appellant has preferred this appeal against the orderdated 17.02.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division),Chandigarh and judgment dated 11.08.2017 passed by AdditionalDistrict Judge, Chandigarh vide which objections filed by theappellant were dismissed and appeal filed against the said orderwas also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. 2. Appellant Neelam filed objections claiming herself tobe wife of original allottee of demised premises namely DharamSingh. She further alleged that decree holder Ashwani Kumarwas power of attorney of her husband. Husband of the appellantdied on 20.03.2005 and thereafter, the said attorney wasautomatically terminated, but the decree holder kept on pursuingthe ejectment petition, appeal and revision and thereafter, filedexecution of the order of eviction against the tenant without anyauthority of the original allottee. Decree holder had filed aneviction petition against Vijay Bhatti and the same was allowed bythe Rent Controller vide order dated 07.11.2006 on account ofnon-payment of rent. The order of eviction was maintained inappeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on04.08.2007 and even by the High Court when the revision petitionwas dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2010. 3. The objections filed by the appellant were contestedby the decree holder and decree holder even disputed the factumof the appellant being wife of late Dharam Singh. The decreeholder claimed that he filed the eviction petition in his individualcapacity and thereafter, persuaded the litigation in his individualcapacity upto the High Court. Tenant Vijay Bhatti was ordered tobe evicted on 07.11.2006. The execution was filed by the decreeholder in his individual capacity and not as power of attorney ofDharam Singh. The decree holder further claimed that he beinglandlord of the premises is not necessarily to be owner of thesame. The status of the decree holder as landlord has alreadybeen accepted upto the High Court, therefore, he denied theassertions made by the objector/appellant. The case of theobjector/appellant is that her deceased husband was owner ofthe demised property and after his death, she has inherited thesame. Stallionjit Singh is in possession of the property under herauthority. 4. Perusal of the record would show that earlier StallionjitSingh filed third party objections, which were dismissed by theExecuting Court vide order dated 06.11.2012. Executing Courthas also recorded a finding that the judgment debtor hadconnived with Stallionjit Singh in order to scuttle the proceedingsof the execution. Order dated 06.11.2012 was maintained inappeal and revision. Thereafter, third party objections were filedby the appellant on the same premise. Executing Courthas also recorded a finding that the judgment debtor hadconnived with Stallionjit Singh in order to scuttle the proceedingsof the execution. Order dated 06.11.2012 was maintained inappeal and revision. Thereafter, third party objections were filedby the appellant on the same premise. Executing Court/CivilJudge (Junior Division), Chandigarh dismissed the objectionsvide order dated 17.02.2016 by holding that the findings ofcollusion have not been set aside by any of the competentauthority till date. The plea of the objector that Stallionjit Singh isin possession of the demised premises under her authority astenant has already been rejected. The objections filed by theappellant have been termed as desperate attempt of theappellant to stall the execution proceedings. The Courts have notgiven any finding in respect of status of the appellant viz-a-viz theproperty in question on the premise that question of title cannotbe decided in the rent petition as the landlord is not necessarily tobe owner of the property. Order dated 17.02.2016 wasmaintained by the Lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated11.08.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that thedecree holder has allegedly filed the eviction petition in hisindividual capacity without disclosing his status as to whether hewas owner or attorney of the original owner. Decree holder hasnot claimed himself to be owner of the premises, but has claimedto be landlord. In any case, decree holder is answerable to theoriginal owner for which his pleadings are totally silent. Learnedcounsel placed reliance upon N.S.S. Narayana Sarma Vs. M/sGoldstone Exports P. Ltd., 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 752and HarVilas Vs. Mahendra Nath and others, 2011(15) SCC 377andsubmitted that third party objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPChave to be decided by the Executing Court after following properprocedure as triable issues have been raised by the appellant. Allquestions have to be decided in the same proceedings whichhave arisen between the parties. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for therespondents placed reliance upon Amar Singh and another Vs.Dalip, 1981 PLR 649 , Shamim Akhtar Vs. Iqbal Ahmad,2000(2) RCR (Rent) 509, E Parashuraman (D) by LRs Vs. V.Doraiswamy (D) by Lr, 2005(2) RCR(Rent) 590and Md.Nooman and others Vs. Md. Jabed Alam and others, [2010(6) Law Herald (SC) 3910] : 2010(2) RentLR 539and submitted that decision rendered by the RentController upon relationship of landlord and tenant would notoperate as res judicata and will be opened to challenge in anappropriate proceedings between the parties. V.Doraiswamy (D) by Lr, 2005(2) RCR(Rent) 590and Md.Nooman and others Vs. Md. Jabed Alam and others, [2010(6) Law Herald (SC) 3910] : 2010(2) RentLR 539and submitted that decision rendered by the RentController upon relationship of landlord and tenant would notoperate as res judicata and will be opened to challenge in anappropriate proceedings between the parties. The question of titlewould be left open for decision by the competent Court. Thetenant by merely denying the relationship with the landlord cannotavoid eviction under the Rent Act. The question whether landlordor some other person was owner of the property is not a relevantfactor in considering the question whether there existed the juralrelationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Landlordneed not be the owner of the premises. Ordinarily, decision ofRent Controller on question of title will not operate as resjudicata, but where the question of title was directly decided in theproceedings by the Rent Controller, then the decision would beres judicata. 7. In the instant case, the Courts below have notcommented upon title of the property, rather decided the status ofthe decree holder being landlord. 8. Order 21 Rule 97 CPC provides remedy to the thirdparty who creates resistance in obtaining possession by thedecree holder. The application can be filed by the personcomplaining of dispossession from the immovable property.Pursuant to such application, the executing Court has power toadjudicate upon all questions relating to rights, title and interest inthe property arising between the parties including those ofstranger. In Order 21 Rule 35 CPC, the provisions have beenmade thereby empowering the executing Court to deliverpossession of the property to the decree holder if necessary, byremoving any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacatethe property. In the instant case, appellant herself has notclaimed that she is in possession, rather claimed that she hadrented out the property to Stallionjit Singh. 9. Evidently, the scope of execution arising out of rentproceedings would not involve any such determination qua title tothe property in view of ratio laid down in Amar Singh andanother’s case (supra)and Shamim Akhtar’s case (supra).The findings recorded by the Rent Controller would not operateas res judicata between the parties in a subsequent suit, if filedfor determining title qua the property. 10. 10. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, suchissues need not be decided in the execution arising out of rentpetition where the scope is only to consider the status of partiesas landlord and tenant. The question of ownership would be leftopen to be determined by the competent Court in appropriateproceedings, if initiated by any of the parties. 11. It is a settled principle of law that all objections are notnecessarily to be decided by way of framing proper issues. It istrue that in view of ratio laid down in M/s Sunil Auto Service Vs.Parikshant Suri and others, 2011(1) RCR (Rent) 452, theexecuting Court is not obliged to decide all irrelevant objectionsby way of following proper procedure of framing issues and thenallow the parties to lead evidence. Such objections can berejected summarily. 12. In view of aforesaid facts and attending circumstancesof the case, I dismiss this revision petition with a liberty to theparties to get the title decided qua the property in someappropriate Forum in accordance with law.