However, the trial companyrt held that in regard to dispute about the creation of fresh tenancy the matter required investigation and after holding that execution application was within the time adjourned the case for evidence of the appellant and stayed the execution during the pendency of the said objections.
On the 19th of April.
There was an appeal from the said order of the Rent Controller and the appeal was dismissed on or about 9th October, 1961 by the 2Rent Tribunal.
Thereafter the Tribunal in July 1981 ordered that the execution was maintainable and was number barred by limitation and it was further held that supplementary objections were number maintainable.
There are two aspects of the matter which have to be borne in mind, one was, when the decree became executable in the facts and circumstances of the case and what would be the period applicable for such execution.
On 17th of July, 1981 the High Court dismissed in limine the second appeal from the same as aforesaid.
Thereafter on 25th September, 1979 the decree holder filed application seeking execution of the order of eviction.
The question is when the limitation starts running.
In the meantime in January, 1964.
On the other aspect of the matter, it is necessary to companysider the ques tion whether once permission under the Slum Act was refused, does it create resjudicata for the second application?
the Limitation Act, 1963 came into operation.
As mentioned hereinbefore the decree holder had filed an application under section 19 of the Slum Act to obtain the permission from the companypetent authority in the year 1962.
On or about 21st of March, 1963 the said application was dismissed by the Competent Authority under the Slum Act.
This particular point was companysidered by a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Des Raj and another v. Noor Khan, A.I .R. 1985 Delhi 470, where the High Court held that under Article 136 of the Limitation Act of 1963 a decree was executable within 12 years from the date when it became executable.
There was an appeal under section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by the appellant against the order of 22nd of August, 1004 1980.
The permission was number granted and the application was dismissed in the year 1963.
The permis sion was granted by the order dated 18th of June, 1979.
Secondly, it was companytended that the application under section 19 of the Slum Act was filed in the month of March, 1975 but the decree holder did number take any steps for 12 years which expired before 20th of March, 1975 to obtain permission from the Competent Authority and from that aspect also the execution application was time barred.
The decree holder filed a fresh application seeking permission from the companypetent authority in the year 1978.
Aggrieved by,the said order the appellant filed appeal before the Rent Tribunal.
On 22nd of August, 1980 order was passed by the Rent Controller that the execu tion application was number barred by limitation.
The main objection raised by the appellant on the point of limitation was firstly, that the decree in question was passed in 1960 and therefore the decee holder ought to have got it executed within 12 years by 1970.
As mentioned hereinbefore the Rent Controller by the impugned order held that the execution application was number barred by time because in the opinion of the said Rent Controller till such time the permission of the Competent Authority Slums was obtained, numberexecution application companyld have been filed.
where the decree when passed, was number enforceable numberexecution companyld be levied and hence period of limitation would number companymence.
Execution was stayed, however, to decide the question of fresh tenancy.
289 of 1982.
A decree of eviction passed under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 on 19 2 60 according to the said decision became executable only on 8 5 81 in the case when permission under the Slum Act to execute it was obtained and therefore the 12 years period prescribed by Art.
Once the limitation started running then unless the statute companyes to the rescue of a person the period would expire after the efflux of time.
1003 From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.
1978, the respondent filed a second application before the Competent Authority for permission to execute the order of eviction.
Objections under section 47, Order 21 Rule 22 and section 15 1, Code of Civil Procedure were filed on behalf of the appellant.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The question that falls for companysideration is whether the decree for eviction of the tenant under the Rent Act passed against the appellant was executable by the respondent or whether the same had become barred by limitation or by principles of res judicata.
Soli J. Sorabji, Anil Kumar Gupta and Brij Bhushan for the Appellant.
1981 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
The order of eviction in this case on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord was passed by the Rent Controller on or about 15th of October, 1960.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 17th of July, 1981 dismissing the second appeal in limine against the order dated 2nd July.
In May 1962 the respondent filed an applica tion before the Competent Authority under section 19 of the Slum Areas Improvement of Clearance Act, 1956 hereinafter called the Slum Act for permission to execute the order of eviction.
Thereafter on or about 25th of September, 1979 the respond ent herein filed an application before the Rent Controller for execution of the decree.
On 28th of August, 1979 the appeal from the said Rent Controller was dismissed by the High Court.
The said objections have been overruled and these are number subject matter of this appeal.
The High Court summarily rejected the second appeal.
In June, 1979 permission was granted by the appropriate authority under the Slum Act.
87 1 of 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.
Discussing certain authorities the Rent Tribunal held that the limitation started from the date of the grant of the permission and as such the execution application was well within time.
R. Agarwala for the Respondent.
1981 in RCA No.
249 of 1981.
