LexKASHI RAM versus RAKESH ARORA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- KASH! RAM A v. RAKESH ARORA AUGUST 18, 1987 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] B Y Limitation Act, 1963: Article 136--Decree for execution-Period of limitation-What is. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 42-0rder of eviction- Execution of-Period of limitation-What is-Permission under s. 19 C of Slum Act 1956--0btaining and effect of. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the appellant-tenant in October, 1960 on the ground of bona fide require- ment of the landlord. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal in October, 1961. The application oftbe respondent- D landlord for permission to execute the order of eviction under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement of Clearance) Act, 1956 filed in May, 1962 was dismissed by the Competent Authority in March, 1963. In the meantime in January, 1964 the Limitation Act, 1963 came . into operation. The respondent filed a second application in April, 1978 E - • · for permission to execute the eviction order. Permissiun was granted in June 1979. In September, 1979 the respondent filed an application before the Rent Controller for execution of eviction order. Objections under Section 47, Order 21Rule22 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were F filed on behalf of the tenant. The Rent Controller passed an order on August 22, 1980 holding that the execution application was not barred by limitation, but stayed the execution to decide the question of fresh tenancy. An appeal against this order was filed by the appellant before the G Tribunal which held that the exeurtion was maintainable and was not barred by limitation and that supplementary objections were not main- tainable. The High Court confirmed this order by dismissing the second appeal in limine. In the appeal by the tenant before this Court, the question for H 1001 1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R. A consideration was whether the decree for eviction under the Rent Act passed against the respondent was executable by the appellant or whether the same had become barred by limitation or by res judicata Allowing the appeal, this Court, B HELD: 1.1 The claim to execute the order of evktion of the Rent ~ c Controller dated 15th October, 1960 had become time-barred. [ 1009G] 1.2 It was not just, equitable and in good conscience to allow such stale claims to be effectuated and that would be contrary to the princi- ples of the Limitation Act, 1963 as well as the Indian Limitallion Act, 1908. [1009E·F] 1.3 The execution of the decree for eviction passed on 15th of October, 1960 became time-barred on 14th of October, 1960 under Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 as it stood then. Under s. 3l(a) of the 1963 Limitation Act, the provisions of the 1963 Limita· D lion Act would not be availed of in respect of an application for which the period of limitation had expired before the commencement of the 1963 Limitation Act, that it to say, 1.1.1964. But even if Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was attracted it had become barred after 12 years from the date of the decree, i.e. 15th October, 1960. [1007G·H; 1008A) - E 1.4 There was no requirement of permission under the Slum Act ' and, as such, no impediment in putting the decree dated 15th October, • ..(, ,,... 1960 into execution. Second application for permission was tiled after a F lapse of more than 15 years; there was, in any event, no legal impediment or legal bar which prevented the respondent from making the "PPlica· ' lion for permission to the competent authority under the Slum Act before. [10098-C] 1.5 The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller as con· firmed by the Tribunal in 1961 had become obsolete in 1978 when the second attempt to execute the same was made. [ !009E) G Des Raj and another v. Noor Khan, A.I.R. 1985 Delhi 470; Ravi Y Dutt v. Rattan Lal, [1984) 2 SCR 614 and Lala Baijnath Prosad and others v. Nursingdas Guzrati, A.I.R. 1958 Calcutta 1 at p. 8, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 289 H of 1982. KASHI RAM v. RAKESH ARORA [MUKHARJI, J.] 1003 From the Judgment and Order dated 17. 7. 198 l of the Delhi High A Court in S.A.0. No. 249 of 198 l. Soli J. Sorabji, Anil Kumar Gupta and Brij Bhushan for the Appellant. B.R. Agarwala for the Respondent. 'r The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave arises from t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.