KHAZA MOINUDDIN Vs. GAYATRI IRON COMPANY VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is directed against the order dt. 6-11-1997 in E.P.No. 2/96 in R.C.C.NO. 235/84 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, directing the revision petitioner to file a memo fixing a date for handing-over the schedule premises within ten days from the date of the order and in the event of failure, to issue delivery warrant returnable by 28-11-1997. The revision petitioner is the landlord of the premises and he will be referred as "land lord" while the respondent will be referred to as "tenant".

(2.) The facts giving rise to this C.R.P. in brief are that the landlord soughtfor the demised premises bearing Door No. 11-1-22 situate at Vijayawada from the tenant for the purpose of reconstruction under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short "the Act") in R.C.C.NO. 235/84. During the pendency of the above R.C.C. the parties settled the matter and accordingly the schedule premises was handedover to the landlord for the purpose of reconstruction subject to the landlord agreeing to handover the same within six months after reconstruction. When the landlord failed to deliver the schedule premises after six months the tenant filed E.P.No. 14/87 for execution of the order in R.C.C.The landlord contested the same on the ground that it is time barred. Thereupon the Rent Controller held that the E.P. was not barred by limitation and the tenant is entitled to re-delivery of the demised premises. Thereupon the landlord filed C.R.P. No. 1539 of 1988. The matter was listed before a learned single Judge of this Court P. Rama Rao, J, who referred the same to a Division Bench as there were conflicting Judgments of two learned single Judges on the question of limitation. A Division Bench consisting of two learned Judges Syed Shah Mohammed Ouadri. J.. (as he then was) and Motilal B. Naik. T.. resolved the conflict and held that the starting point of limitation is to be reckoned from the date when the decree or order became executable and from that view the E.P. is not barred by limitation. Adverting to the merits it was contended on behalf of the tenant that during the course of reconstruction a stair-case was laid in the demised premises and that the same has to be removed and in that context another shop was offered to the tenant. The learned Judges held that both the parties agreed that instead of the demised premises another premises can be offered to the tenant and that the tenant is not precluded from accepting the other premises in lieu of the demised premises. Thus C.R.P.NO. 1539/1988 was disposed of on 26-2-1993.

(3.) The landlord filed a Memo in the lower Court on 14-9-1995 stating thatpursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court he offered the premises bearing door No. 11-1-23 in the same building to the tenant in the first week of March, 1993 and that in spite of the landlord's repeated offers, the tenant did not turn up to discuss regarding the said shop and accept the offer and having waited for one year for acceptance, of his offer, he has let out the shop offered to the tenant as he was suffering heavy loss of rents. Thus he sought for dismissal of the Execution Petition on the ground that the tenant-decree holder did not turn up and accept the offer within a reasonable time.