DEVAKI Vs. 1ST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) 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 grounds. He was agitating through out on several stages and his attempts finally failed only on 25. 2. 91 when the Original Petitions were dismissed by this Court. It was only on that date the order became final. Therefore, he has got twelve years period from that date to execute the order of eviction granted under S. 11 (2) (b ). A plaintiff or a petitioner is not bound to execute decree in triblets. A plaintiff or petitioner can wait until the final stage of his suit or petition is attained. From the date of attainment of final stage alone the decree need be executed and the period provided for in Limitation Act will commence, the 3rd respondent contends. Therefore, Exts. P1 and P2 are perfectly justified.