LAWS(DLH)-1970-5-12

SHANKAR LAL Vs. SHADI RAM RAM SWAROOP

Decided On May 29, 1970
SHANKAR LAL Appellant
V/S
SHADI RAM RAM SWAROOP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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.