DES RAJ Vs. NOOR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in this revision petition is: Whether the execution application is within limitation? Tehl Chand, father of the petitioners filed a suit for eviction of the respondent Noor Khan on 20th May, 1958 under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 with respect to a portion of property No. 10020 Gali Naiwali, Nawabganj, Pul Bangash, Delhi. He obtained a decree for his eviction on 19th February 1960. Under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 the decree becomes executable only after obtaining the permission from the Competent Authority under the said Act as the suit premises are situated in a slum area. The decree-holder applied for permission to execute the decree but it was refused on 2nd April, 1962. His appeal filed under Section 20 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was also dismissed. Subsequently it appears, the decree-holder filed a suit for possess on on the basis of title but his suit was also dismissed on 1st April, 1968.

(2.) Tehl Chand, decree-holder died leaving bebind his sons Des Raj and Nand Lal. They applied for permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 to execute the decree dated 19th February, 1960. They also filed an application on 17th July, 1980 for execution of the said decree. The judgment debtor Noor Khan filed objections. During the pendency of the Execution application the decree-holder was granted permission on 8th May, 1981 under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 to execute the decree dated 19th February, 1960.

(3.) The judgment debtor had objected that the decree by the civil court was a nullity, it was barred by time and was not executable without permission of the Slum Authority. The execution court by the impugned order dated 15th October, 1984 held that the decree was not a nullity that though permission had been obtained the decree became unexecutable as the decree-holder did not take any action for a long time and the execution application was barred by time.