.....no independent right regarding tenancy; he is bound by the eviction decree passed against the tenant. ln terms of section 30 of the karnataka rent control act, he is liable to be evicted.;(b) civil procedure code, 1908 (central act no. 5 of 1908) - order 21 rule 97 -- meant to assist decree-holder -- only decree-holder or purchaser can invoke provision -- remedy permissive not mandatory -- successive applications can be made for issue of delivery warrant -- decree-holder not to be penalised for not taking action under order 21 rule 97 against resistance.;the provision is meant to assist the decree-holder in execution. the only person who can invoke the provision is the decree-holder or the purchaser. the legal position is that this remedy which is available to the decree-holder is permissive and not mandatory. he can make successive applications for the issue of delivery warrant. he cannot be penalised for not having taken action under order 21 rule 97 cpc against resistance.;- order 21 rules 58, 97 and 99 as amended -- order passed under order 21 rule 58(4) treated as decree -- questions of right, title and interest in proceedings under rules 97 or 99 to be decided by the concerned court; separate suit barred -- after amendment no suit dealing with identical issue covered by rules 58, 97 and 99 --suit not maintainable ; remedy only under order 21.;in execution, prior to 1976 amendment, two types of suits were contemplated: they are - 1) order 21 rule 6.3 and 2) order 21 rule 103. after amendment such suits cannot be entertained. the order passed under sub-section (4) of order 21 rule 58 is treated as a decree ; similarly all questions of right, title and interest, decided in a proceeding under rule 97 or rule 99 shall be determined by the court dealing with these petitions and separate suit is barred. resultant position is, after the 1976 amendment there cannot be a suit dealing with the identical issue, which is covered by order 21 rules 38, 97 or 99. if such a.....order 21 rules 58, 97 and 99 as amended -- order passed under order 21 rule 58(4) treated as decree -- questions of right, title and interest in proceedings under rules 97 or 99 to be decided by the concerned court; separate suit barred -- after amendment no suit dealing with identical issue covered by rules 58, 97 and 99 --suit not maintainable ; remedy only under order 21.in execution, prior to 1976 amendment, two types of suits were contemplated: they are - 1) order 21 rule 6.3 and 2) order 21 rule 103. after amendment such suits cannot be entertained. the order passed under sub-section (4) of order 21 rule 58 is treated as a decree ; similarly all questions of right, title and interest, decided in a proceeding under rule 97 or rule 99 shall be determined by the court dealing with these petitions and separate suit is barred. resultant position is, after the 1976 amendment there cannot be a suit dealing with the identical issue, which is covered by order 21 rules 38, 97 or 99. if such a suit is filed, it is legally not maintainable and the only remedy available to the party would be to take steps as per order 21.