Back
1970 Supreme(Del) 139
High Court Of Delhi
SHANKAR LAL - Appellant
Versus
SHADI RAM RAM SWAROOP - Respondent
Civil Revision 2D of 1966
Decided On : 05/29/1970
A.C.Sehgal, R.DAYAL
The bar imposed by Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act does not stop the running of limitation for the execution of eviction decrees passed before the Act came into force, and execution applications filed during the period when the bar is in operation are steps in aid of execution and save the limitation period.
Headnote:
SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT - SECTION 19 - LIMITATION ACT - ARTICLE 182 - EXECUTION OF DECREE - EFFECT OF SECTION 19 ON LIMITATION - STEPS IN AID OF EXECUTION - JURISDICTIONAL ERROR - EXERCISE OF DISCRETION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the execution of a decree for eviction passed against him on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The decree was passed in 1955, and the execution application was filed in 1964. However, during the intervening period, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 came into force, which imposed a bar on the execution of eviction decrees without the permission of the competent authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the bar imposed by Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act did not stop the running of limitation, as the decree was passed before the Act came into force. However, the court also held that the execution applications filed by the decree-holder during the period when the bar was in operation were steps in aid of execution and saved the limitation period. The court further held that the trial court's decision on the issue of jurisdiction was a jurisdictional error, but it declined to exercise its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the impugned order had advanced the interests of justice and the judgment-debtor had engaged in dilatory tactics.
Issues: 1. Whether the bar imposed by Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act stopped the running of limitation for the execution of the eviction decree? 2. Whether the execution applications filed during the period when the bar was in operation were steps in aid of execution? 3. Whether the trial court's decision on the issue of jurisdiction was a jurisdictional error?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The bar imposed by Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act did not stop the running of limitation for the execution of the eviction decree, as the decree was passed before the Act came into force. 2. The execution applications filed during the period when the bar was in operation were steps in aid of execution and saved the limitation period, as they were filed within the time prescribed by Article 182 of the Limitation Act. 3. The trial court's decision on the issue of jurisdiction was a jurisdictional error, but the court declined to exercise its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the impugned order had advanced the interests of justice and the judgment-debtor had engaged in dilatory tactics.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial court's order allowing the execution of the eviction decree.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the tenant judgment-debtor and it raises an interesting question of law. The material facts of the case giving rise to the revision are in a narrow compass. Shadi Ram and Ram Sawarup are the owners and landlords of the property in which the petitioner before me has been the tenant. The respondents instituted a civil suit for eviction of the peti tioner under Section 13 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952 on various grounds mentioned in the plaint, one of them being non-payment of rent. On 26th July, 1955, a compromise decree was passed against the petitioner-tenant in favour of the landlord directing the payment of arrears of rent due by certain date and in default, the petitioner was lia, ble to eviction. Eventually the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the decree and became liable to eviction. On or about 20th May, 1960 the landlord owners assigned the decree in favour of the respondent before me by a registered deed. After the assign-ment the respondents on 21st May, 1984 moved an application for eviction of the tenant which was met with the olea that the same was barred by limitation as prescribed by Article 182 of the Limitation Act of 1908. The validity of this plea is the subject matter of the revision
( 2 ) IN reply to the said objection, the respondents urged that the execution was within time as steps in aid of execution had been taken and the execution applications mentioned hereinafter in detail had been filed on account of the provisions of Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Imp- rovement and Clearance) Act of 1956 which came into force on 8th Fe- bruary, 1957 On the averments of the parties the following question was framed for determination by the trial Courts :- Whether the application was within limitation ?
( 3 ) THE objection of the petitioner failed before the trial court which answered the issue in the afinmative and held that the applica- tion was within limitation and not barred by time. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come up in revision under section 115 ot the Civil Procedure Code.
( 4 ) IT is common ground between the parties that the decree in question was passed on 26th July, 1955 and the judgment-debtor was required to deposit the decretal amount by 15th November, 1955 which he failed to pay and became -liable to eviction, below are mentioned the dates of various ex. cution applications with their results which are not in dispute.
( 5 ) IN view of the dates and facts mentioned above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the Court below on the grounds namely :- (1) The time during which the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act had been inforce and the decree was not executed could not be excluded as the Act came into force after the decree had become executable and therefore, under section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1908 no subsequent disability or in- ability could stop the running of the time. (2) Time spent in obtaining permission of the Competent Authority could not be excluded as there was no provision in the Limitation Act, 1908 permitting the said ex- clusion and as well as because the application had already become barred hy time before the permission had been applied for. (3) The first second and third applications were not steps in aid of execution in accordance with law.
( 6 ) SECTION 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, the effect of which has to be considered in this case, reads as folio s :-
19 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no person shall except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority :- (a) institute, after the commencement of the Slum Areas (Im- provement and Clearance) Amend Tient Act 1964 any suit or pro- ceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area or (b) where any decree or order is obtained
