TADIKONDA PARVATHAMMA Vs. ALI BAIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision involves an interesting and important question of law of limitation. The petitioner is the land-lord decree holder and the respondent is the tenant judgment-debtor. To avoid any confusion, I would refer to the parties as land-lord and tenant.

(2.) The land-lord obtained a decree for eviction from the Rent Controller, Gudivada in Rent Control Case No. 10 of 1974 on 14-6-1976. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed on 30-3-1981. The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act, was also dismissed on 20-7-1982. While confirming the order of eviction, the High Court granted 3 months time to the tenant to vacate the premises. As the tenant did not vacate, the land-lord took out execution proceedings. He filed E P No. 1 of 1983 on 25-1-1983. On objection by the tenant the Trial Court dismissed the E P as barred by limitation It is against this order the present revision is filed by the land-lord.

(3.) The sole and principal contention of Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the execution petition filed on 25-1-1983 is well within time and the trial Court was palpably wrong in dismissing the application as barred by limitation. He submits that the period of limitation of six months begins to run from the date when the order becomes executable and not from the date on which the order is passed. He referred to Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act and urged that the words 'six months from the date of the order' mentioned in the Rule should not be given a literal meaning, but should be construed in a reasonable manner. The word "order" mentioned in the Rule means enforceable order, an order capable of execution. The order in the Civil Revision Petition dated 20-7-1982 granted three months time to the tenant to vacate the premises and the present application filed on 25-1-1983 is within six months from the date of expiry of three months. The land lord could not have filed a petition within the period of three months granted by the High Court. In short his submission is that the time begins to run not from 20-7-1982 when the petition was dismissed, but from 20-10-1982 from the date of expiry of the time given to the tenant to vacate the premises.