ORDER : CRP No.3698 of 2019: This revision petition arises out of the order and decree dated 14.10.2019 passed in EA No.180 of 2017 in EP No.1 of 2012 in RCC No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. CRP No.3699 of 2019: 2. This revision petition arises out of the order and decree dated 14.10.2019 passed in EA No.1 of 2012 in EP No.1 of 2012 in RCC No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. 3. Heard arguments of learned counsel for revision petitioners and learned counsel for respondent. 4. The revision petitioners are the claim petitioners, who are the wife and children of the J.Dr. The EA No.1 of 2012 was filed under Rule-23(7) of Rent Control Rules, 1961, for the eviction of the J.Dr. who was a tenant of the schedule premises. 5. The case of the revision petitioners is that the 1st respondent has filed RCC No.4 of 2011 against the 2nd respondent that he committed default in payment of the rent of Rs.2,800/- and obtained eviction orders in RCC against the 2nd respondent, and it was a collusive suit to defeat their rights. The petitioners have filed a suit for partition in OS No.63 of 2011 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, against the respondents 1 and 2. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte in the said suit. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the J.Dr. has purchased the schedule property under a registered sale deed. The petitioners being the wife and children, have 1/4th share in the schedule property. There is no jural relationship between respondents 1 and 2. 7. The 1st respondent has filed a counter contending that the eviction orders passed against the 2nd respondent behind his back is false. It is denied that the 2nd respondent agreed to pay Rs.1500/- and Rs.1300/- to the ground floor, total Rs.2,800/- for a period of three months and that the 1st respondent put the 2nd respondent as tenant in the schedule house property with the knowledge of the petitioners. The 2nd respondent and the petitioners have a collusive suit to have a wrongful gain. The 1st respondent got issued a legal notice for eviction through their advocate and after receipt of the eviction notice, the present petition is filed. The 2nd respondent and the petitioners have a collusive suit to have a wrongful gain. The 1st respondent got issued a legal notice for eviction through their advocate and after receipt of the eviction notice, the present petition is filed. It is the case of the respondents that the 1st respondent purchased the petition schedule property from the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent had cleared the debts to the bank; there is no cause of action in this petition as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners submit that the allegation that the 1st respondent obtained eviction orders against the 2nd respondent is false and incorrect. 8. It is the case of the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent and the petitioners have collusively filed the petition to have a wrongful gain and got issued a legal notice for eviction through their Advocate. After receiving the eviction notice, the present petition is filed. 9. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he has purchased the petition schedule property from the 2nd respondent and he cleared all the debts to the bank and there is no cause of action in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners have no locus standi to file the present application. 10. The executing court on consideration of the issues, has dismissed the application holding that the claim petitioners failed to establish their joint right in the schedule mentioned property and mere pendency of a partition suit does not confer any right or title of the claim petitioners. The claim petitioners are bound to obey the decree. It is further held that the claim petitioners are not entitled to any relief and they have no right to continue in the schedule mentioned property. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 11. The Execution Application E.A.No.1 of 2012 was filed under Rule 23(7) of Rent Control Rules 1961. The jurisdiction of the executing Court has been challenged in this execution application. The findings of the executing court: 12. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 11. The Execution Application E.A.No.1 of 2012 was filed under Rule 23(7) of Rent Control Rules 1961. The jurisdiction of the executing Court has been challenged in this execution application. The findings of the executing court: 12. The executing Court has observed in para-17 of its order that, the counsel for the 1st respondent relied on a decision reported in the case of V.Nirmal Kumar Alias V.Robert Nirmal Kumar vs. Tamil Evangelical Luthern Church, 2013 (7) MLJ 211 , wherein IRMAL KUMAR wherein it was held as under: “Once it is decreed, the Court which has passed the decree has got every power to execute it. Accordingly, once an execution petition is filed before such Court, a third party much less an obstructor cannot raise question with regard to the jurisdiction of the executing Court, which is not within his domain. A litigation ended in passing of a decree and put in for execution cannot be questioned by a third party to the proceedings on the ground of jurisdiction even assuming that he has got some right as an obstructor in the execution petition. Right to obstruct by a third party should flow from the facts and circumstances which are pleaded and established and not by questioning the jurisdiction of the Court. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner being a third party to the proceedings has no locus standi to question the jurisdiction, more so, when such jurisdiction is not touching upon the subject matter of the suit and only the pecuniary value of the same.” 13. In the light of the above judgment it is obvious that the petitioner being third party to the proceedings has no locus standi to question the jurisdiction also whether jurisdiction is not touching upon the subject matter of the suit and only the pecuniary value of the same. 14. Therefore, it is obvious that the claim petitioners have no right to question the jurisdiction of the executing court. The trial Court further held that mere pendency of suit for partition does not confer any right entitled on the claim petitioners and the claim petitioners are bound by the decree. It is further held that the claim petitioners have no right to continue in the schedule mentioned property and on these grounds the claim petitions are dismissed. 15. The trial Court further held that mere pendency of suit for partition does not confer any right entitled on the claim petitioners and the claim petitioners are bound by the decree. It is further held that the claim petitioners have no right to continue in the schedule mentioned property and on these grounds the claim petitions are dismissed. 15. The Claim petitioners are the third parties to the RCC No.4 of 2011. They are the family members of the JDR. They filed a suit for partition over the schedule property. The possession of which was ordered to be delivered to the respondents. The evidence of PW 1 the climb petitioner reveals that she along with her children is staying in the building and they filed a suit for partition of the schedule mentioned property and she is entitled for three fourths share in the property. The trial court has clearly observed that the claim petitioners have not filed any document claiming a share. The petitioners are claiming their rights of the 2nd respondent, who is the respondent in the main passes proceedings the climb petitioner did not filed any proof that they are living independently and climbing independent right of the petition schedule property. It is obvious that the petitioners have not an independent claiming their rights through judgment debtors of the trial court in this regard has clearly observed that except saying that they filed a for partition not filed any proof before the trial court to show that this court right in the schedule mentioned property. They have not filed any tax receipts on the links in the receipt is not entitled is to establish the independent right over the schedule mentioned property. 16. As rightly observed by the trial court that the claim petitioners are able to prove that they have a share in the schedule property possession of the schedule property after the decree is passed in their favour in the petitioner suit. 17. The contention of the claim petitioners that the 1st respondent filed AS No.4 of 2011 against 2nd respondent cohesively and obtained permission orders during the petitioners are the respondents. In fact the claim petitioners have claimed their rights of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, until the disposal of the petitioner suit the claim petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief by way of independent rights in the present proceedings. 18. In fact the claim petitioners have claimed their rights of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, until the disposal of the petitioner suit the claim petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief by way of independent rights in the present proceedings. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for climb petitioner is that the executing court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the 1st respondent has no legs to stand for the reason that there is no dispute with regard to the Pecuniary jurisdiction Of the court below. The claim petitioners have no right to question of the jurisdiction of the court being 3rd parties to the proceedings. In the light of the judgments relied on by the trial court in V.NIRMAL KUMAR’s case, the petitioner being the third party to the proceedings is no locus standi to question the jurisdiction of the right control court. 19. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the sale deed is a nominal sale deed. Due to disputes between the wife and husband a rent control case has been filed. He submits that the sale deed was entered into towards discharge of bank loan. The sale deed was of the year 2010 and she has not discharged the loan. The sale deed is entered for the purpose of the case to avoid liability. The third party claim claiming rights when suit has already been decreed and it is not the stage of execution. The point of jurisdiction of Rent Control Case cannot be decided in this case. The petitioner has not claimed an independent title. The filing of the present suit and claiming rights over the same would not create any right to the petitioners at this stage of execution proceedings. 20. The point of jurisdiction of Rent Control Case cannot be decided in this case. The petitioner has not claimed an independent title. The filing of the present suit and claiming rights over the same would not create any right to the petitioners at this stage of execution proceedings. 20. Rule 23(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 reads as under : Section : 23 (7) If such execution is resisted and obstructed by any person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed, the Controller may hold a summary enquiry into the facts of the case and if he is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause, and that such resistance and obstruction still continues shall issue a warrant to evict the said person by force and deliver the possession of the building to the person entitled for possession in pursuance of the order of eviction, and if he is satisfied that the resistance or the obstruction was occasioned by any person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed claiming in good faith to be in the possession of the building on his own account or on account of some person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed, he shall make an order disallowing the execution against such person. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the third parties to the rent control proceedings. It is a fact that the petitioners are the family members of the 1st respondent, who was residing in the said premises. The petitioner being head of the family is the tenant. The other family members are being represented by him as they all constitute a unit of family. They have filed a suit for partition claiming a share in the suit schedule property. The partition suit is pending before the civil court. Therefore, they are not entitled for any protection under Rent Control Act. The other family members are being represented by him as they all constitute a unit of family. They have filed a suit for partition claiming a share in the suit schedule property. The partition suit is pending before the civil court. Therefore, they are not entitled for any protection under Rent Control Act. Rule 23(7) of the Act makes it clear that if the rent controller is satisfied that the resistance or the obstruction was occasioned by any person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed claiming in good faith to be in the possession of the building on his own account or on account of some person other than the person against whom order of eviction was passed, he shall make an order disallowing the execution against such person. 22. In the instant case, the petitioners are none other than the family members of the 1st respondent. They are residing in the demised premises of 1st respondent along with him. Now they come out with a version that they have filed a suit for partition, and the suit schedule property belongs to them, and they have a share in the property. The proceedings in the partition suit are entirely different, and unless they prove the same with some evidence that they have a share in the schedule property, they are not entitled to claim rights over that property. The Rent Control Court has already passed a decree directing eviction of the 1st respondent form the schedule premises and therefore, the petitioners being the family members cannot turn around and say that they have a share in the said property and therefore, RCC Court cannot pass orders against them for eviction. 23. The other contention of the petitioners is that the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Civil Judge, Tanuku, has no jurisdiction to entertain the application and therefore, the award passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Civil Judge, Tanuku, is not in accordance with law. 24. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between respondents 1 and 2 seeking to evict the petitioners from the schedule property. In an execution petition, the question of relationship between the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be raised by the claim petitioners, who are private parties to the proceedings. In an execution petition, the question of relationship between the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be raised by the claim petitioners, who are private parties to the proceedings. The rent controller has already considered the aspect and passed appropriate orders and the same was not challenged by the 1st respondent by way of filing any rent control appeal. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to raise such plea seeking stay of execution. 25. The question with regard to jurisdiction to entertain the rent control case can be raised only by the 1st respondent. But the respondent has not preferred any appeal against the orders passed by the rent controller. Therefore, the order of the rent controller has become final. 26. The petitioners have not filed any appeal being third parties to the rent control case. They are not entitled to take a plea of “lack of jurisdiction to the rent controller”. There are no merits in the revision petition. 27. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. Thereafter, he filed a petition seeking to set aside the ex-parte order alleging that the sale deed dated 19.10.2010 executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the schedule property is not valid and the petitioners having 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent and to evict the petitioners from the schedule mentioned property. The 1st respondent has filed eviction suit against the 2nd respondent collusively. The 1st respondent obtained eviction orders in RCC No.4 of 2011 against the respondent without adding the petitioners. While so, on 16.6.2012 the Amin approached the petitioners, who are residing in the petition schedule property and asked them to vacate on or before 18.06.2012. Thereafter, they came to know that the 1st respondent obtained eviction order in RCC No.4 of 2011. The 1st respondent has no right to seek eviction of the petitioners as they residing on their own right and requested to dismiss the EP by allowing the claim petition.