The main legal point established in the judgment is that the execution of an eviction order under S.11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act should be done within a reasonable time, and the landlord is entitled to wait until the final stage of the petition is attained before executing the order.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The tenants in a rent control petition are the petitioners in this Original Petition, Challenge is against Exts. P1 and P2. The order of eviction passed against them was sought to be executed by the 3rd respondent. Petitioners raised objection before the execution court that the execution petition was barred by limitation. That objection was overruled in Ext. P1. Matter was taken up in revision by the petitioners. The revision was dismissed by Ext. P2 confirming Ext. P1 and holding that the execution petition was not hit by the provisions of limitations. It is in the above circumstances, petitioners have approached this Court challenging Exts. P1 and P2.

2. As the only issue is with regard to the limitation, it is necessary to advert to bear minimum facts. The landlord applied for eviction of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. That was allowed as per order dated 23.2.77 on all the three grounds. The tenants took up the matter in appeals. As per the appellate judgment dated 23.6.78, the findings on the grounds available under S.11(3) and 11(4) (iv) were vacated and eviction on the ground available under S.11(2) (b) was confirmed. Thus, eviction was allowed only under S.11(2) (b) as per the appellate judgment dated 23.6.78. Landlord took up the matter in revision. Revision was allowed on 1.1.79, The tenants brought the matter before this Court in Civil Revision Petitions. As per order dated 9.10.80 the Civil Revision Petitions were allowed remanding the matter to the revisional court. On 27.3.87 the revisions were dismissed. Thus, what survived was only the eviction ordered under S.11(2)(b). Civil Revision Petitions were filed by the landlord before this court. These petitions were dismissed on 22.1.87 as not maintainable, being a second revision. Thereupon two original petitions were filed. Those were also dismissed on 25.2.91, Thus, the matter became final on 25.2.91. What survived as on that date was an order for eviction under S.11(2)(b). Consequently, the landlord filed execution petitions on 30.11.91. Tenants resisted that execution pleading that the rent had already been paid. But, that was not accepted. Thereupon, objection of limitation was taken up.

3. The contention of limitation is that the order for eviction under S.11(2) (b) became final on 23.6.78 when RCA Nos. 6 and 7 or 1977 filed by the tenants were allowed on the grounds under S.11(3) and 11(4)(v) and dismissed on the ground under S.11(2)(b). By the time the execution petition was filed on 30.11.91, twelve years period in terms of Art.136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had already elapsed. There was no challenge against the finding under S.11(2)(b) in the judgment dated 23.6.78 either in revisional court or before this court during any of the several stages, until Original Petitions were dismissed on 25.2.1991 Therefore, the eviction ordered under S.11(2)(b) was available for execution from 23.6.78 onwards. The landlord did not avail of that opportunity until 30.11.91. By that time 12 years period in terms of the Limitation Act is over. Orders of the Rent Controller is executable as if it is a decree. Therefore, it has to be executed within 12 years period commencing from 23.6.78. This aspect has not been properly considered by the execution court in Ext. P1 and revisional court in Ext. P2, the petitioner contends. Execution petitions were filed beyond 12 years, those are not maintainable, the petitioners contend.

4. In answer to these contentions, the landlord submits that the order become final only on 25.2^91 when the Original Petitions filed by him were dismissed. He had applied for order of eviction in a single petition on three grounds. At the appellate stage, only one ground was found in his favour as per judgment dated 23.6.78. He was not satisfied with the judgment. He continued his effort to get eviction order under all the