NAVIN CHANDRA Vs. PREMA BAI PITTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the orders of the First Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in E.P. No. 44/89 in R.CNo. 1041/ 1988.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision can briefly be stated as follows: The Petitioner was the tenant of the Respondent in respect of premises situated at Hyderabad. The Respondent-land-lady filed R.CNo.1041/88 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that she required the premises for demolition and re-construction. In these proceedings the parties entered into a compromise and filed a compromise Memo on 28-12-1988. As per mat compromise, the Petitioner-tenant shall deliver possession of the premises to the land-lady on 28-12-1988 and the land-lady agreed to complete construction and redeliver possession of the reconstructed premises within six months from 28-12-1988 to the Tenant. The Rent Controller accordingly allowed the Petition. The Respondents took possession of the premises, completed re-construction of the same but did not redeliver possession of the premises to the Petitioner after its completion. So the petitioner gave a notice dated 3-7-1989 to the Respondent- landlady and requested her to put him in possession of the premises within seven days. The Respondent received the said notice and sent a reply dated 10-7-1987 contending that the relief asked for is barred by time and that therefore, the petitioner is not competent to ask for redelivery of possession. Thereafter the Petitioner-Tenant filed E.P.No.44 /89 on 7-8-1989. The first Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad dismissed the same by an order dated 7th October, 1989 holding that the petition is barred by time. Aggrieved by that order of the Rent Controller the Petitioner-Tenant has filed this revision.

(3.) The Rent Controller relying on the decision reported in 1987(2) A.L.T. (NRC) at page 15 held that the petition is barred by time. In that case the application for redelivery was made early ten years after the period specified for redelivery. But in the instant case the delivery ought to have been made on 27-6-1989. As the Respondent-landlady failed to redeliver possession after completion of reconstruction, he gave a notice on 3-7-1989 requesting for delivery of possession. Then the land-lady sent a reply dated 10-7-1989 stating that it is barred by time. Immediately after the receipt of the said reply the Tenant has filed E.P.No. 44/89 on 7-8-1989. So, under the circumstances it would be quite unreasonable to apply the above decision to the facts of this case. Execution can be levied only when the order is disobeyed and the question of disobedience does not arise till the expiry of time given by the Court for delivery of possession.