Judgement

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 17th of July, 1981 dismissing the second appeal in limine against the order dated 2nd July, 1981 in R.C.A. No. 871 of 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.

2. The order of eviction in this case on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord was passed by the Rent Controller on or about 15th of October, 1960. There was an appeal from the said order of the Rent Controller and the appeal was dismissed on or about 9th October, 1961 by the Rent Tribunal. In May 1962 the respondent filed an application before the Competent Authority under S.19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Slum Act) for permission to execute the order of eviction.

3. On or about 21st of March, 1963 the said application was dismissed by the Competent Authority under the Slum Act. In the meantime in January, 1964, the Limitation Act, 1963 came into operation. On the 19th of April, 1978, the respondent filed a second application before the Competent Authority for permission to execute the order of eviction. In June, 1979 permission was granted by the appropriate authority under the Slum Act. On 28th of August, 1979 the appeal from the said Rent Controller was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter on or about 25th of September, 1979 the respondent herein filed an application before the Rent Controller for execution of the decree. Objections under S. 47, O. 21 R. 22 and S. 151 of Civil P.C. were filed on behalf of the appellant. On 22nd of August, 1980 order was passed by the Rent Controller that the execution application was not barred by limitation. Execution was stayed, however, to decide, the question of fresh tenancy.

4. There was an appeal under S. 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by the appellant against the order of 22nd of August, 1980. Therafter the Tribunal in July 1981 ordered that the execution was maintainable and was not barred by limitation and it was further held that supplementary objections were not maintainable. On 17th of July, 1981 the High Court dismissed in limine the second appeal from the same as aforesaid.

5. The question that falls for consideration is whether the decree for eviction of the tenant under the Rent Act passed against the respondent was executable by the appellant or whether the same had became barred by limitation or by principles of res judicata. As mentioned hereinbefore the decree-holder had filed an application under S. 19 of the Slum Act to obtain the permission from the competent authority in the year 1962. The permission was not ranted and the application was dismissed in the year 1963. The decree-holder filed a fresh application seeking permission from the competent authority in the year 1978. The permission was granted by the order dated Birth of June, 1979. Thereafter on 25th September, 1979 the decree-holder filed application seeking execution of the order of eviction.

6. The main objection raised by the appellant on the point of limitation was firstly, that the decree in question was passed in 1960 and therefore the decree-holder ought to have got it executed within 12 years by 1970. Secondly, it was contended that the application under S. 19 of the Slum Act was filed in the month of March. 1975 but the decree-holder did not take any steps for 12 years which expired before 20th of March, 1975 to obtain permission from the competent authority and from that aspect also the execution application was time barred.

7. There are two aspects of the matter which have to be borne in mind, one was, when the decree became executable in the facts and circumstances of the case and what would be the period applicable for such execution. On the other aspect of the matter, it is necessary to consider the question whether once permission under the Slum Act was refused, does it create res judicata for the second application.

8. As mentioned hereinbefo