An order of eviction passed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the landlord and tenant, when executed was obstructed by the appellant resorting to the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He claimed kudikidappu over the building. He has preferred this appeal challenging the concurrent decision rendered by the execution court and also the lower appellate court negativing his claim of kudikidappu. Application moved by him for claiming kudikidappu is pending for consideration before the Land Tribunal and after notices were issued in that proceeding, a compromise was entered into by the landlord and his father, shown as the tenant in the rent control proceedings, and by virtue of such a compromise, an order of eviction was passed, but, it is not binding on the appellant as he is having an independent right to claim kudikidappu right over the building, was his case for obstructing the order of eviction passed by the execution court. The execution court, on the facts and circumstances presented and materials produced, found no merit in the claim raised by the appellant to obstruct the eviction order passed against his father on the basis of the compromise with the landlord. In evidence,
