( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 20th September, 1991 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby the learned Rent Control Tribunal upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 21. 8. 1991 in terms of which he allowed the application tor execution of eviction order filed by Shri Hans Raj, respondent (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as landlord) and issued warrants of possession ignoring civil court s decree dated 10. 10. 90.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the landlord let out the suit premises bearing flat No. 20b, New Qutub Road, Delhi to the appellant (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the tenant ). In the year 1962 the landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant under Clause (b) of proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act) on the ground of sub-letting. It was alleged in this petition that the tenant sublet, assigned or otherwise parted-with the possession of the suit premises to Kanwar Bhan, whose LRs are respondents No. 2 (a) to (c), (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the sub-tenant) without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. This petition was dismissed by a learned Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 7th November, 1967 on the ground that the suit property belonged to the Government and as such the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the suit premises by virtue of Section 3 of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the landlord filed an appeal before the Kent Control Tribunal which was accepted vide orders dated 9th February, 1968 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal and an eviction order was passed under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act. The tenant challenged the aforesaid order dated 9th February, 1968 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal in this Court in SAO 229/68. The said appeal was, however, dismissed by this Court on 8th December, 1972 and the eviction order was upheld.

( 3 ) SINCE the suit premises which were situated in slum area and were covered under the provisions of Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (in short Slum Areas Act), the landlord filed an application under Section 19 (1) (b) of the said Act on 5th February, 1973 for obtaining the permission from the competent authority. The application, however, was rejected by the competent authority vide orders dated 18th July, 1973 on the ground that the said application was not in accordance with the rules. Thereafter, the landlord filed a fresh application under the provisions of the slum Areas Act on 18. 5. 1979 which was contested by the tenant and finally the permission was granted by the competent authority on 24. 11. 86.

( 4 ) ON 15th April, 1987, the landlord tiled an application for execution of the order of eviction. Objections on behalf of the tenant were filed on 3rd October, 1987 in the execution proceedings. The main objection taken by the tenant was that the application for execution was time barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act as the execution was being sought after the expiry of more than 12 years from the date of eviction order. The objections were dismissed by the executing court vide order dated 15. 7. 88 on the ground that in the present case, the decree became executable only after the permission was granted by the competent authority under the Slum Areas Act and as such the limitalion would run from the date such permission was granted and not from the date of order of eviction. It may be, noted here that the tenant did not file any appeal against the aforesaid order dated 15. 7. 88.

( 5 ) ON 5th October, 1988 objections in the execution proceedings were filed by the sub-tenant also. The main objection of the sub-tenant was also similar to that of the tenant. He also contended that the application for execution was time barred as the execution was being sought after the expiry of