MOHD YOUSUFUDDIN KHAN Vs. SITA KRISHNASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property, which is the subject-matter of this suit, it appears from the judgment of the High Court in C.M.A. No. 218 of 1965, originally stood in the name of one Shamsunnissa Begum. But in 1958, this property was mortgaged by the petitioners before me, who are admittedly the sons of Shamsunnissa Begum to one Sri Mohd. Hussain Khan for a sum of Rs. 2,500 and after the said mortgage was redeemed, the property was sold to Mrs. Sybel Ughar, an English lady, for Rs. 7,000, under a registered sale deed, dated 30th March, 1959. Mrs. Sybel Ughar sold this property to the respondent before me for Rs. 12,000 under a registered sale deed, dated 4th July, 1962. Mrs. Sybel Ughar filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioners alleging wilful default on their part in the payment of rent due to her. The respondent obtained on 12th January, 1965 an order from the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the petitioners from the house in question. The operative part of the Rent Controller's order is as follows :-

(2.) There was an appeal by the petitioners to the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. It was dismissed on 5th April, 1965. The learned Judge while dismissing the appeal, gave three months' time for eviction, meaning thereby that the appellants before him had to give vacant possession within three months from the date of his judgment. The appellants should have, therefore, vacated the suit house on or before 5th July, 1965. One Younusuddin filed O.S. No. 35 of 1965 in the Court of the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition of the ' Matruka ' stating that the suit property belonged to his mother, Shamsunnissa Begum, in which he has got 1/3 share. In that suit, he filed a petition under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying to restrain the respondent before him from executing the decree for eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Courts Hyderabad. The Court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, refused to grant an injunction. Then, the plaintiff in that suit filed C.M.A. No. 218 of 1965 in this High Court against the order refusing injunction. In that C.M.A., he filed C.M.P. No. 5545 of 1965 praying to issue an injunction against the respondent restraining her from dispossessing him from the suit house. On 24th June, 1965, there was an order of interim injunction, which was made absolute on 24th November, 1965. That was pending disposal of the C.M.A. The C.M.A. itself was disposed of by the Chief Justice and Mohamed Mirza, J., on 28th January, 1966. Then, the respondent filed a petition to execute the order of eviction on 5th February, 1966. On behalf of the petitioners, objection was taken that the execution petition was barred by limitation under rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This objection was overruled by the Rent Controller-cum-Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, before whom the execution petition was filed under section 15 of the Act, which reads :

(3.) That is why this revision petition is filed by the petitioners against the order of the lower Court overruling their objections to the execution on the ground of limitation. The point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners again before me is that the execution petition is barred by limitation under rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act. These rules were framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 30 of the Act. Clause (1) of rule 23 is the relevant clause and reads as follows:-