KHAJA MOINUDDIN Vs. GAYATRI IRON COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision petition is referred to Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court, noticing difference of opinion expressed by P. Ramarao, J. in M. Bikshapam vs. Manik Rao and K. Ramaswamy, J. (as he then was) in Hanumantharayappa vs. Vittal Rao with regard to interpretation of Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (for short "the Rules"). The question which arises for our consideration in this Civil Revision petition is:- "What is the meaning of the expression 'from the date of the order' in Rule 23 of the Rules?"

(2.) It would be relevant here to refer to the facts giving rise to the controversy in this Civil Revision Petition. In the course of this judgment, the parties will be referred to as 'landlord' and 'tenant'.

(3.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the landlord challenging the validity of the order dated 7th May 1988 in E.P. No. 14 of 1987 in R.C.C. No. 235 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller at Vijayawada. The landlord filed an application under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. (for short "the Act") for recovery of possession of the petition schedule premises, viz., Door No. 11-1-22 situated at Vijayawada, for repairs and alterations. He gave an undertaking to the effect that he would hand over the petition schedule premises to the tenant immediately after reconstruction. Thereafter, the Rent Controller passed orders on 4-10-1985 directing the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the landlord, by October 28, 1985 and directed the landlord to complete the construction work within six months from the date of delivery of possession and to offer the same to the tenant immediately after the reconstruction. It appears that pursuant to the said order, the tenant handed over the petition schedule premises to the landlord on 17-10-1985. The landlord who had by then partly completed the construction of the building, proceeded with the re-construction of the portion vacated by the tenant but failed to offer the same to the tenant after completion of the re-construction. So alleging, the tenant filed E.P. 14 of 1987 for recovery of possession of the petition schedule premises. The landlord resisted the execution petition mainly on the ground that in view of Rule 23 of the Rules, the execution petition was barred by limitation. However, he contended that the reconstruction of the petition schedule premises was not completed by then.