The period of limitation for filing an execution application under the Rent Control Act begins to run from the date when the order becomes executable, not from the date of the order.

( 1 ) THIS revision involves an interesting and important question of law of limitation. The petitioner is the landlord decree-holder and the respondent is the tenant judgment-debtor. To avoid any confusion, i would refer to the parties as landlord and tenant.

( 2 ) THE land-lord obtained a decree for eviction from the Rent Controller, gudiv ada in Rent Control Case No. 10 of 1974 on 14-6-1976. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed on 30-3-1981. The Civil Revision petition filed under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter called (he Act, was also dismissed on 20-7-1982. While conforming the order of eviction, the High court granted 3 months time to the tenant to vacate the premises. As the tenant did not vacate, the land-lord took out execution proceedings. He filed E. F. No. I of 1983 on 25-1-1983. On objection by the tenant the trial Court dismissed the E. P. as barred by limitation. It is against this order the present revision is filed by the land-lord.

( 3 ) THE sole and principal contention of Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the execution petition filed on 25-1-1983 is well within time and the trial court was palpably wrong in dismissing the application as barred by limitation. He submits that the period of limitation of six months begins to run from the date when the order becomes executable and not from the date on which the order is passed. He referred to Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act and urged that the words "six months from the date of the order" mentioned in the rule should not be given a literal meaning, but should be construed in a reasonable manner. The word "order" mentioned in the rule means enforceable order, an order capable of execution. The order in the Civil Revision Petition dated 20-7-1982 granted three months time to the tenant to vacate the premises and the present application filed on 25-1-1983 is within six months from the date of the expiry of three months. The, land-lord could not have filed a petition within the period of three months granted by the High Court. In short his submission is that the time. begins to run not from 20-7-1982 when the petition was dismissed, but from 20-10-1982 from the date of expiry of the time given to the tenant to vacate the premises.

( 4 ) THIS contention is countered by the learned Counsel for the tenant Mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad saying that the language employed in rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act is simple, clear and unambiguous. The Rule lays six months from the date of the order and the same must be literally construed. To read "from the date of the order" as enforceable order or executable order would be introducing language which is not there. The Legislature must have been fully aware of the provisions of the Limitation Act which expressly says that the time begins to run from the date of the enforceable order. The omission of such language in the rule is deliberate and the intention of the Legislature is evident that only six months time should be given to the land-lord for filing execution petition. The law of limitation though technical in character should be given a strict construction.

( 5 ) RULE 23 of the Rules framed under the Act is as follows:"23 (1):every application for the execution of orders passed under this act shall be in writing, signed and verified by the decree-holder and filed before the controller within six months from the date of the order accompanied by a certified copy of the order concerned together with the necessary process fee. Provided that an application may be admitted after the specined period, if the applicant satisfies the Controller that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the application within such period. It is not necessary to refer to the other clauses of Rule 23. "

( 6 ) FROM this rule, it is clear that the period of limitation for filing an execution application by a decree-ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document