Lapse of five years period if a bar to the execution of the decree.

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the district Munsif, Ootacamund, allowing the application E.A. No. 8 of 1984, under Section 47, C.P.C.

2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision can be briefly stated as follows: The revision petitioner herein obtained a decree for recovery of the same (sic). The respondent herein, who is the defendant in the suit, filed the petition under Section 47 read with Section 151, C.P.C. contending that in the written statement filed by him in O.S. No. 203 of 1974 he has specifically pleaded that he is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and that the remedy of the revision petitioner herein is to proceed against him for eviction before the Rent Controller. The said plea was not accepted by trial court as well as the District Court. However, in A.S. No. 1153 of 1978, this Court observed that the executability of the decree passed in the matter will have to be considered by the executing Court. It is stated that the construction of the building in question was completed by 1.4.197l and has the same was assessed to property tax with effect from the said date. The period of five years given in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act exempting from the operation of the provisions of the said Act so far as new buildings are concerned, expired with effect from 31-3-1976. Hence, from 1-4-1976, he has become the statutory tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and is entitled to the benefits of the said Act. According to him, therefore, the decree in O.S. No. 203 of 1974, passed on 19-6-1976 is not executable by virtue of the provisions of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and as such, he is not liable to be evicted and that he is entitled to continue in possession.

3. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioner herein and he inter alia contended that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, are not applicable in executing the decree for possession dated 19-6-1976, which was confirmed by the District Court as well as the High Court. It is further stated that the building in question was exempted under Section 30(1),of the Act, and that the suit itself was filed on 12-7-1974, after the commencement of the amended Act and it ended in a valid decree. There was no change of law by way of further amendment of the Act. Though the decree was passed subsequent to the expiry of five years period, the same has not the effect of rendering the suit incompetent or nullifying the decree passed therein or adversely affecting its executability. Hence, there is no bar in executing the decree for recovery of possession. The right of the revision petitioner is a vested one and that there is no provision in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to take away that right. The tenancy was terminated by a valid notice and the suit has been filed for recovery of possession. The revision petitioner was also awarded a decree for damages for use and occupation. The respondent did not have the status of tenant from 1-5-1974 and the suit was filed on 12-7-1974. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. The District Munsif accepting the case of the respondent-tenant held that the revision petitioner herein, who is the decree holder, is not entitled to execute the decree in view of the specific provision contained in Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and consequently allowed the application. Hence, the aggrieved decree holder, the revision petitioner herein, has preferred this revision.

5. The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the plaintiff is entitled to execute the decree for ejectment, since the period of five years from the date of/notification of the building expired by t