Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. This is an application by the plaintiff for an order that certain persons should vacate the premises, the subject metter of Suit No, 1427 of 1920 filed against the lessee in which a decree was passed by consent that the defendant should vacate the premises and deliver up peaceful possession to the plaintiff on or before the 31st December 1920. When the plaintiff sought to execute his decree, he was obstructed by the present opponents and accordingly he had to make an application under Order XXI, Rull 97. Under Rule 99 where the Court is satisfied that resistance or obstruction was occasioned by any person (other than the judgment-debtor) claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor, the Court will make an order dismissing the application.
2. In this case the opponents do not say that they are in possession of the suit property on their own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor. They have to admit that they are tenants of the judgment-debtor. The question whether they are servants or agents of the judgment-debtor and not tenants, is not really reavnt to the question at issue because in either case they are not entitled to obstruct the decree-holder. The opponents apparently place some reliance on the Bombay Kent Act. But although they may be tenants with regard to their immediate lessor and so entitled to protection against him, there is nothing in the Act to protect them against the landlord of the premises, with whom there was no privity of contract, It seems to roe that this conclusion must be obvious. Otherwise when his tenant has sub-let the premises a landlord would either have to make every sub-tenant a, party to his suit against his tenant or, if he omitted to do that, he might have to file suits against all the sub-tenants after he had obtained a decree against his tenant. That certainly was not intended by the Act.
3. No doubt a plaintiff suing for possession may find it advantageous to join all the persons in possession of the suit premises, to avoid difficulties which may otherwise arise when he attempts to execute his decree, but there is nothing in the Bombay Rent Act which gives persons in possession through the tenants a better right to obstruct the execution of the decree than they had apart from the Act.
4. The summons must be made absolute with costs.
5. Counsel certified.