BABIAMMAL Vs. RENT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order of the first respondent dated 23.9.1989 made in E.P. 308 of 1988. In a proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, before the Ist respondent, final adjudication has been made to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises bearing Door No. 225-D situate at Chinna Pillay Line, New Agraharam, Ootacamund. The second respondent put the said order dated 15.7.1980 in execution in accordance with Section 18(1) of the Act and accordingly the first respondent summoned the petitioner in E.P. No. 308 of 1988. The petitioner appeared and objected to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller on various grounds and also filed an application under Section 47 CPC. The said petition under Section 47 CPC however, was dismissed by the first respondent on 23.9.1989. The petitioner preferred a civil revision petition before this Court in CRP No. 3135 of 1989. This petition was also dismissed at the admission stage on 29.11.1989, but this Court granted two months time for eviction. Notwithstanding, however, the dismissal of the said Civil Revision Petition and rejection of the objection raised under Section 47 CPC the petitioner has this time chosen to file this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari. Section 18 of the Act reads :-

(2.) THE ground for maintaining the instant petition is that the order under Section 10 of the Act was passed on 25.7.1980. The same, no doubt, was executable, but could be put to execution within a period of three years only as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not after a lapse of seven years as in the instant case. This plea has been raised after a battle under Section 47 CPCP and in the revision before this Court aforementioned and in spite of the fact that this Court ordered in civil revision that the petitioner would vacate the premises within two months of the dismissal of the revision petition. Still, however, to test whether there is any force in the contention of the petitioner or not. I shall refer to the provisions in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Article 136 thereof Section 18 of the Act has already been cited above. Article 137 of the Limitation Act reads :-

(3.) THUS , it is clear that in his attempt to forestall the execution of the decree, the petitioner has not spared even the last straw that he could find, if not to save himself from eviction at least to delay the execution of the order even beyond the period fixed by this Court in the civil Revision petition. He has substantially succeeded in his attempt in delaying the execution of the order and if a final verdict is not recorded now, he would continue to do so. The judgment aforequoted leaves no manner of doubt that Article 137 of the Limitation Act can be invoked only in the case of any petition or application filed under the Act to a civil Court. If learned counsel for the petitioner is right that the Rent Controller is not a civil Court, then the application for execution has not been filed in a civil Court because Section 18(1) of the Act has given the power to execute the order to the Rent Controller. If the deeming section is available in view of the language under Section 18(1) of the Act, then the order of the Rent Controller is as if an order of a Civil Court and while executing the order the Rent Controller is a civil Court or is exercising the power of a civil Court. Thus, if the order is treated as an order of a civil Court, the period of limitation will be twelve years from the time it became enforceable as in Article 136 of the Limitation Act. The words "as if such an order is an order of a Civil Court and for this purpose, the Controller shall have all the powers of a Civil Court" must be given its full meaning and if that is done, of the orders, the Rent Controller, for the purpose of execution of the orders passed by him, is a civil Court and proceedings in execution of the orders of the Rent Controller are proceedings in the execution of an order of a Civil Court.