SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(AP) 441

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.A.SWAMI
Tadikonda Parvathamma - Appellant
Versus
Ali Baig - Respondent
Decided On : 11-30-83

The period of limitation for filing an execution application by a decree-holder is six months from the date when the order becomes executable.

Headnote:

LIMITATION - EXECUTION OF DECREE - PERIOD OF LIMITATION - SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER - INTERPRETATION - RULE 23 OF THE RULES FRAMED UNDER THE ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 - WHETHER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION BEGINS TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OR FROM THE DATE WHEN THE ORDER BECOMES EXECUTABLE.

Fact of the Case:

The landlord obtained a decree for eviction from the Rent Controller in 1976. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed in 1981. The Civil Revision petition filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, was dismissed in 1982. The High Court granted 3 months time to the tenant to vacate the premises. The landlord filed an execution petition after 3 months, which was dismissed by the trial court as barred by limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the period of limitation for filing an execution application by a decree-holder is six months from the date of the order. However, the court interpreted Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act to mean that the period of limitation begins to run from the date when the order becomes executable. In this case, the order of eviction granted three months time to the tenant to vacate the premises, and therefore, the period of limitation began to run from the expiry of the three months.

Issues: 1. Whether the period of limitation for filing an execution application by a decree-holder is six months from the date of the order or from the date when the order becomes executable? 2. Whether the order granting time to the tenant to vacate the premises extends the period of limitation for executing the order?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act to mean that the period of limitation begins to run from the date when the order becomes executable. The court reasoned that the order of eviction granted three months time to the tenant to vacate the premises, and therefore, the period of limitation began to run from the expiry of the three months. 2. The court held that the order granting time to the tenant to vacate the premises does not extend the period of limitation for executing the order. The court reasoned that the order of eviction is subject to the limitation of being executable after three months, and therefore, time for execution begins to run only when the order becomes executable.

Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the impugned order. The court held that the execution petition filed by the landlord was not barred by limitation and directed the Rent Controller to proceed with the execution petition.

K. AMARESWARI, J.

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

( 2 ) THE land-lord obtained a decree for eviction from the Rent Controller, Gudivada 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 the Act, was also dismissed on 20-7-1982. While confirming 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 P no. 1 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 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 says 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, 1963 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 specified 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 applicat


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top