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

1982 Supreme(AP) 230

A.SEETHARAM REDDY
A. P. State Road Trans. Corpn. , Vijayawada – Appellant
Versus
Ghansyamdas Thosniwal – Respondent


A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE Revisionist in the tenant. The sole rather important point that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is whether the tenant is entitled to a notice before the execution is order at a time when the execution petition is filed beyond 2 years. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that there is no authoritative pronouncement on this aspect. The argument is that admittedly the execution petition has been filed beyond 2 years and since there is no specific rule framed under the Act governing the situation, the provisions enacted in Order XXI, Rule 22, C. P. C. Are attracted which provides for a notice to be given to the judgment-debtor before any execution is ordered. Hence the order which has been made on the execution petition filed by the respondent is admittedly without any notice and the same will have to be set aside. Rule 23 of the Rent Control Rules framed under the A. P. Buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 reads as follows:-"rule 23. (1) Every application for the execution of the orders passed under this Act shall be in writing signed and verified by the decree holder and filed before the controller within





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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top