Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI
Mohd.Yousufuddin Khan - Appellant
Versus
Sita Krishnaswamy - Respondent
Decided On : 03-24-66
RENT CONTROL - EXECUTION OF EVICTION ORDER - LIMITATION - PERIOD OF INJUNCTION - EXCLUSION - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 15 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 29 (2) OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were ordered to vacate the suit premises by the Rent Controller and the order was confirmed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. The respondent obtained an order from the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the petitioners from the house in question. The petitioners filed an appeal to the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which was dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the order of the lower Court overruling their objections to the execution on the ground of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the execution petition was in time and dismissed the revision petition with costs. The court held that the period during which the order of injunction restraining the respondent from executing the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was in force had to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for execution of the order of eviction under section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court also held that section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to the proceedings before the Rent Controller-cum-Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, even though he was not a civil Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the execution petition was barred by limitation under rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960? 2. Whether the period during which the order of injunction restraining the respondent from executing the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was in force had to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for execution of the order of eviction? 3. Whether section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to the proceedings before the Rent Controller-cum-Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the execution petition was not barred by limitation under rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, as the period during which the order of injunction restraining the respondent from executing the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was in force had to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for execution of the order of eviction under section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. The court held that section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to the proceedings before the Rent Controller-cum-Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, even though he was not a civil Court, as the words "suit, appeal or application" in section 29 (2) must be read in their plain meaning and are inclusive of any suit, appeal or application prescribed by a special or local law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition with costs.
( 2 ) THERE was an appeal by the petitioners to the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad. It was dismissed on 5th April, 1965. The learned Judge while dismissing the appeal, gave three months time for eviction, meaning thereby that the appellants before him had to give vacant possession within three months from the date of his judgment. The appellants should have, therefore, vacated the suit house on or before 5th July, 1965. One Younusuddin filed O. S. No. 35 of 1965 in the Court of the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition of the Matruka stating that the suit property belonged to his mother, shamsunnissa Begum, in which he has got 1/3 share. In that suit, he filed a petition under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying to restrain the respondent before him from executing the decree for eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Courts hyderabad. The Court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, refused to grant an injunction. Then, the plaintiff in that suit filed C. M. A. No. 218 of 1965 in this High Court against the order refusing injunction. In that C. M. A. , he filed C. M. P. No. 5545 of 1965 praying to issue an injunction against the respondent restraining her from dispossessing him from the suit house. On 24th June, 1965, there was an order of interim injunction, which was made absolute on 24th november, 1965. That was pending disposal of the C. M. A. The C. M. A. itself was disposed of by the Chief Justice and Mohamed Mirza, J. , on 28th January, 1966. Then, the respondent filed a petition to execute the order of eviction on 5th February, 1966. On behalf of the petitioners, objection was taken that the execution petition was barred by limitation under rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This objection was overruled by the Rent controller-cum-Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, before whom the execution petition was filed under section 15 of the Act, which reads :"every order made under section 10, section 12, section 13, or section 14 and every order passed on appeal under section 20 or on revision under section 22 and every order as to costs under section 21 shall be executed by the Controller : provided that an order passed in execution under this section shall not be subject to an appeal, but shall be subject to revision under section 22. "
( 3 ) THAT is why this revision petition is filed by the petitioners
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
