JUDGMENT Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.(Oral):- Heard. 2. This is revision against order dated 16.12.2017 passed by CivilJudge (Junior Division), Ludhiana dismissing the objections filed bypetitioner, who is tenant in the demised premises and has been ordered to beejected by the Rent Controller. He availed remedy of appeal and revisionagainst order of ejectment but ultimately failed. Before the Executing Courthe raised one objection after the other including question of title of thedecree holder, his filing of petition for ejectment without consent of otherco-sharers. He then filed one more application dated 12.09.2016 to theeffect that one of the co-sharers Sh. Rajnish Thamman had agreed to rentout the tenanted premises and had also shown willingness to sell out hisshare in the tenanted premises. This has frustrated the plea of bona fideneed raised by the decree-holder. One more application dated 08.12.2016was filed on the ground that one half share in the tenanted premises hadbeen sold to JDs no. 3 and 4 (sons of JD no. 1) by one of the co-owners videregistered sale deed dated 27.10.2016, as such eviction decree had becomeinfructuous. The petitioner filed one more application dated 28.11.2017 fortreating the executing petition as null and void as the petitioner had paid therent to JDs no. 3 and 4 (sons of JD no. 1) and obtained receipts from them. 3. Learned Executing Court after relying on observations ofHon’ble Apex Court in case of Pramod Kumar Jaiswal vs. Bibi HusnBano, 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 570and observations of this Court in cases ofMohan Lal vs. Amrik Singh, 2007 (2) RCR (Rent) 686and NarenderKumar vs. Amar Lal, [2016(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2969 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1747] : 2016 (3) PLR 329has observed that the tenancy rightof a tenant could not merge with the ownership and subsequent purchasersare under legal obligation to first surrender possession of the tenantedproperty and then seek separate remedy of partition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to observationsof Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Imambi vs. Azeeza Bee, 2002 (2) RentLR 385,wherein it has been observed that after the decree of specificperformance of the property in favour of tenant his status seizes to be that ofa tenant and he assumes title over the suit property. Above observations inno manner are helpful to the appellant as he has not purchased any right inthe tenanted property. Above observations inno manner are helpful to the appellant as he has not purchased any right inthe tenanted property. He has also relied on observations of this Court incase of Kewal Krishan and another vs. S.P.S. Bhullar, Advocate andantoher, [2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2241] : 2014 (2) RCR (Civil) 907,wherein it has been observed thatdecree-holder is bound to show better title to defeat the title pleaded by athird party. In this case no third party has pleaded better title over the suitproperty. Even otherwise citations referred by learned counsel for thepetitioner have clearly laid down the law that subsequent purchaser againstwhom ejectment order has been passed, are under legal obligation first tosurrender possession of the tenanted property and then seek separate remedyof partition. 5. In view of above facts, I find no legal or factual infirmity in theorder passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, as such,the instant revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.