M N K R NAGAPPA Vs. NAGAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/ the decree -holders in O.S. No.95 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Devakottai. The petitioners filed the said suit seeking for eviction of the respondent and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 10.4.1980. The respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed on 16.2.1987. As against this, the respondent preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 11 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Devakottai and the same was ended in dismissal by judgment and decree dated 21.3.1990. Thereafter, the petitioners filed E.P. No. 104 of 1990 seeking for recovery of possession. That was dismissed on 24.10.1980. Thereafter, the present execution petition has been filed.

(2.) THE respondent herein contended the E.P. on the ground that since the earlier E.P. was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the value of the superstructure, which the respondent is entitled to by way of compensation, within the stipulated period of three months, the second execution petition is barred. Further, the respondent had stated that the petitioners ought to have deposited the compensation amount within three months from the date of decree of the trial court as per Sec.4(1) of the City Tenants - Protection Act and since the same has not been complied with, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. The court has no power to extend the time prescribed under the statute. No evidence has been let in by both the parties. The executing court had dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the petitioners failed to comply with the statutory requirement of Sec.4(l) of the City Tenants - Protection Act and as such the result would follow as per Sec.4(4) of the said Act. As against this, the present revision has been filed. But, however, the executing court has held that the present execution petition is maintainable.

(3.) ON the contrary, the counsel for the respondent contended that the ex parte decree was passed as early as 10.4.1980. The petitioners ought to have deposited the amount within three months from the date of the decree, which is the statutory requirement and since the petitioners did not comply with the same the execution was rightly dismissed.