Execution of decrees cannot be barred by limitation when the Rent Control Act no longer applies after its repeal.

ORDER :

1. This revision has thrown up some interesting questions of law. The interpretation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is called in question in the present revision petition, as one amongst other legal issues.

2. I have heard Mr. N.R. Anantha Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. M.V. Seshachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom originally a suit was filed before the Civil Court for recovery of possession. The suit came to be decreed in favour of the respondents/landlords. However, before the decree could be executed, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (in short 'Act') was extended to the area in which, the petition premises was situate. Therefore, the respondents thought it fit to initiate Rent Control proceedings for eviction. Admittedly, the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Controller Appellate Authority have concurrently ordered eviction. However, the same was reversed in revision before this Court finding that it was only the date of institution of the suit that would be relevant and in such circumstances, it was open to the respondents to execute the decree and not initiate Rent Control proceedings, taking advantage of the extension of the Rent Control Act.

4. It is contended by Mr.N.R.Anantha Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner that firstly, the revision came to be allowed at the instance of the tenant, setting aside the concurrent orders of eviction. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the landlords should have taken up the orders passed in the revision on appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since the order passed is erroneous and the said order cannot be taken advantage by the respondents to contend that the decree passed in the suit at the earliest instance, is executable.

5 It is also contended by Mr.N.R.Anantha Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming the decree can be executed, without admitting he would contend that the Execution Petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. In this regard, he would take me through the relevant dates. He would also state that though this Court while allowing the revision on 13.03.2023 had initially permitted the respondents to take advantage of the period pertaining to the RCOP proceedings to be excluded. However, subsequently by order dated 21.12.2023 in Rev. Application No.225 of 2023, at the instance of the tenant, the earlier order was reviewed, holding that the liberty granted by including the time spent in the RCOP proceedings to be excluded was withdrawn. He would therefore state that the resultant position is that the respondent did not have the benefit of exclusion of the period where he was agitating the issue before the Rent Controller, the Rent Control Appellate Authority and also in revision before this Court.

6. Mr.N.R.Anantha Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that even Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot come to the rescue of the respondents/landlords, pointing out to the decision that was relied on by this Court, which initially granting liberty, in the revision viz. Rajender Bansal and others Vs. Bhuru (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others, (2017) 4 SCC 202 and this Court referring to paragraph No.18 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had proceeded to hold that the Rent Control Act would not apply and on the