ANDHRA PRADESH TRANSPORT CO VIJAYAWADA Vs. GHANSYAMDAS THOSNIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revisionist in the tenant. The sole rather important point that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is whether the tenant is entitled to a notice before the execution is order at a time when the execution petition is filed beyond 2 years. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that there is no authoritative pronouncement on this aspect. The argument is that admittedly the execution petition has been filed beyond 2 years and since there is no specific rule framed under the Act governing the situation, the provisions enacted in Order XXI, Rule 22, C. P. C. Are attracted which provides for a notice to be given to the judgment-debtor before any execution is ordered. Hence the order which has been made on the execution petition filed by the respondent is admittedly without any notice and the same will have to be set aside. Rule 23 of the Rent Control Rules framed under the A. P. Buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 reads as follows:-

(2.) A reading of sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 23 of the Rent control Rules make it abundantly clear that the Legislature did not intend to enact a provision enabling the judgment-debtor to have a notice before the execution is ordered: this is so even if the execution is levied beyond 6 months. There is no dispute by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any notice is required in case the execution petition is filed not only within 6 months but even within 2 years. But the provision enacted in sub-rule (4) of Rule 23 provides a clue as to under what circumstances a notice will have to be given to the judgment-debtor before the execution petition is ordered. Sub-rule (4) follows sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 and therefore, the intention of the legislature must irresistably be imputed to the effect that they did not desire to have any notice issued to the persons including the judgment-debtor other than the legal representatives as contemplated under sub-rule (4).

(3.) Yet another aspect. We find three contingencies laid down under Order XXI, Rule 22. One of such contingencies is whenever execution application is made against the legal representative of a party to the decree, a notice shall go. The legislature certainly must be imputed with the knowledge of the provisions enacted in order XXI, Rule 22 (1) of the three varied contingencies under which a notice must be given if the execution petition is filed beyond 2 years. If that be so the Legislature having had the Knowledge of Rule 23 (1) along with the proviso where the powers specifically had been conferred upon the Court to condone the delay where the execution petition is filed beyond 6 months could have enacted a provision similar to Rule 22 of order XXI, Civil filed beyond 6 Months, specifically so when such a provision has been explicitly made under sub-rule (4) of Rule 23 of the Rules.