JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. Can a person claiming as a co-owner obstruct the delivery of a building, pursuant to an order of eviction obtained by another co-owner, is the question to be decided in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner obtained an order of eviction against one Sadanandan, under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the 'Act'). The order of eviction attained finality by dismissal of the revision (R.C.R.No.129/2016) by this Court as early as on 23/3/2017. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an execution petition. It appears that several attempts have been made to obtain delivery through the execution court including with the aid of the police. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed an execution application under Rule 97 & 98 of Order XX1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Their claim was that they have a share in the tenanted premises and the petitioner herein is only a co-owner along with them. According to them, the rent control petition was filed without their consent and they are not interested in evicting the tenant. The Rent Controller, after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that the respondents 1 to 3 are the co-owners and the tenanted premises being a dwelling house cannot be claimed by a person (petitioner), not being the member of the family of the original owner of the building, and such person is not entitled to get possession of the dwelling house. This finding was made with reference to Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. Challenging this order, this original petition was filed. 3. The first objection that was raised before this Court is on the maintainability of the original petition in the light of the remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in appeal, as provided under Rule 103 of Order XXI CPC. We shall answer the objection relating to maintainability of the original petition at the later stage, after adverting to the nature of the right that can be claimed by a co-owner in objecting to the delivery of a building obtained by another co-owner. 4. There cannot be any dispute as to the maintainability of the eviction petition by one of the co-owners without conjunction or consent of the other co-owners. 4. There cannot be any dispute as to the maintainability of the eviction petition by one of the co-owners without conjunction or consent of the other co-owners. See the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash and Another v. Mishri Lal (Dead) Represented by His Legal Representative Savitri Devi and Another [ (2017) 5 SCC 451 ] and India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and others v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Others [ (2004) 3 SCC 178 ]. 5. The order of eviction obtained by one of the co-owners is perfectly legal and cannot be treated as null and void. 6. We shall now advert to Rule 97 Order XX1 CPC and other provisions related to resistance in delivery of possession to the decree holder or the auction purchaser etc. Order XXI Rule 97 CPC is the provision available to a person to lawfully resist the delivery of possession in execution. It is open for a person to resist the delivery either before or after actual delivery. {See the judgment in Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and Another [ (1997) 3 SCC 694 )]}. The scheme of statutory provisions under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC followed by other provisions, is to protect the legal possession or physical possession of the person raising objection to the delivery, on any legally sustainable ground. 7. The legal possession denotes control over the immovable property, it is not necessary that the person should have actual possession to resist the delivery in the execution. {See the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashan Devi and Another v. Phulwasi Devi and Others [(2003) 12 SCC 219]}. The actual possession means, physical possession. {See the judgment of the Apex Court distinguishing between legal and physical possession, Sadashiv Shyama Samant (Dead) through the Lrs. and Others v. Anita Anant Sawant [ (2010) 3 SCC 385 ]}. 8. The person raising obstruction before the execution court must demonstrate that on delivery, his legal possession or physical possession would be affected, to maintain a petition under Rule 97, Order XXI CPC. If the person's legal possession or physical possession is not affected, that person cannot maintain a petition under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. 9. Admittedly, in this matter, the tenanted premises is in the occupation of a tenant. That means, the obstructor has no actual or physical possession of the building. If the person's legal possession or physical possession is not affected, that person cannot maintain a petition under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. 9. Admittedly, in this matter, the tenanted premises is in the occupation of a tenant. That means, the obstructor has no actual or physical possession of the building. On delivery of the tenanted premises to another co-owner, his legal possession also is not affected in as much as that if he is a true co-owner, he can still retain control over the immovable property on an order of delivery. That means, on delivery of a tenanted premises to another co-owner, based on an order of eviction, neither his legal possession nor his right to claim actual possession is affected. In such circumstances, a person claiming to be co-owner cannot maintain a petition under Order XXI Rule 97 to obstruct delivery of order of eviction obtained by another co-owner. 10. Regarding the claim of the obstructors that they are not interested in evicting the tenant, it is a matter in the realm of the contractual obligations between the parties thereto. If the paramount interest of another co-owner arising out of contractual obligation is required to be protected qua the tenant, the remedy of such co-owner is to file a suit to enforce his right based on the contract of tenancy. In that suit, perhaps, he may be able to seek an injunction against the delivery. However, in the guise of seeking performance of contractual obligations, a co-owner cannot obstruct delivery by invoking the provisions under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC for the reason that none of his legal possession or physical possession is affected consequent upon ordering delivery. In order to entertain such petitions, the execution court must be competent to pass an order to protect legal possession or physical possession of the person who obstructs delivery. The execution court cannot entertain such a petition to protect the possession of any person other than the obstructor/s. 11. In light of the discussions as above, we are of the view that the petition itself was not maintainable before the execution court at the instance of the respondents 1 to 3. The order passed is related to the jurisdiction of the execution court. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction can be set right by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. 12. The order passed is related to the jurisdiction of the execution court. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction can be set right by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out with reference to the additional documents produced along with I.A.No.2/2022 that, the suit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 for partition has been dismissed holding that respondents 1 to 3 are not co-owners. We are not looking at these documents as it is not possible for this Court to decide the rival claims or interests on merit in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the result, the original petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. We direct the execution court to effect the delivery within six weeks, if so warranted with police aid.