Skip to content


Subramania Pillai Vs. Rajakkani Nadar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Limitation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 737 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Mad310; (1971)1MLJ223
ActsMadras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act; Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules - Rule 32; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 47 - Order 21; Rent Control Act
AppellantSubramania Pillai
RespondentRajakkani Nadar and anr.
Cases ReferredSheik Ali v. Sheik Mohamed
Excerpt:
- .....we do not read rule 32 as a provision in conflict with or contrary to any of the provisions of the civil procedure code relating to execution of a decree. in fact section 27(1) enables proceedings by or against the legal representatives. but if it is regarded that section 18 only enables the execution of an eviction order but the rest of the act does not provide for the procedure for execution in the sense the execution of an eviction order is not a proceeding under the act, even so, inasmuch as the procedure for execution in the civil procedure for execution in the civil procedure code would be attracted, there would be no room for applying rule 32. it seems to us that by its language, it can be invoked only in the proceedings pending before the rent controller. with respect we are.....
Judgment:

Veeraswami, C.J.

1. The legal representative of the deceased tenant, against whom an order of eviction had been obtained, is the petitioner. While the application for eviction in execution of that order was pending, the tenant died on October 17, 1963. The application for bringing on record the petitioner as the tenant's legal representative was filed in March 1964 and it was ordered by the District Munsif, and that order was confirmed by the District Judge. The petition to revise the order came in the first instance before Alagiriswami J., who not being inclined to the view of the then Chief Justice in C. R. P. No. 929 of 1969 referred it for disposal by a Division Bench.

2. The petitioner relies on Rule 32 of the Rules framed under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which provides for one month from the date of the death of the person concerned or the date of the knowledge of the death of the person concerned as limitation for an application for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased person on record. Rule 32 reads:

'Time limit for bringing the legal representatives on record in proceedings: Every application for making the legal representative or representatives of a deceased person party to a proceeding under the Act shall be preferred within one month from the date of the death of the person concerned or the date of knowledge of the death of the person concerned.'

If this rule applies to the execution proceeding there can be no doubt that the application for bringing the legal representative on record was belated and there was no power to excuse the delay in making the application. Section 18 says that an order of eviction shall be executed in the City Civil Court and elsewhere by the District Munsif, and if there is no District Munsif by the Subordinate Judge. The execution by the District Munsif has to be carried out as if the order of eviction were a decree passed by him. We do not decide the question whether the capacity in which the City Civil Court Judge or the District Munsif is called upon to execute is in any way different, for no argument has been addressed to us on that point. Treating the District Munsif in the section as referring to his court, the fiction enjoined attracts to the eviction order the entire procedure applicable to execution of a decree.

When a fiction is created statutorily, it must no doubt be limited to its purpose, but, for the purpose for which it was created, the putative state of affairs should be excluded. In other words, the expression 'as if it were a decree passed by the District Munsif' would have the effect of a decree passed by him. On that view we should think, Rule 32 would have no application to the execution of an eviction order. We do not read Rule 32 as a provision in conflict with or contrary to any of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to execution of a decree. In fact Section 27(1) enables proceedings by or against the legal representatives. But if it is regarded that Section 18 only enables the execution of an eviction order but the rest of the Act does not provide for the procedure for execution in the sense the execution of an eviction order is not a proceeding under the Act, even so, inasmuch as the procedure for execution in the Civil Procedure for execution in the Civil Procedure Code would be attracted, there would be no room for applying Rule 32. It seems to us that by its language, it can be invoked only in the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller. With respect we are unable to agree with the view in C. R. P. No. 929 of 1969 (Mad).

3. On the other hand an identical point was decided in Abdul Fatha v. Mohammad Jabbar. : (1956)2MLJ475 and we share the view expressed therein. That was a case in which the tenant died even before an execution application was filed. Nevertheless it was held, relying on a section in the Act, analogous to the present Section 18, that in execution of such an order all the provisions of Section 47 and Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code were attracted, which allow a decree to be executed against the legal representatives, apart from Order 22. Much the same view would appear to have been taken in App. No. 75 of 1956, Narayanaswami v. Renuka Devi. : AIR1960Mad298 . Balakrishna Ayyar and Subrahmanyam, JJ. observed in that case that when once an order of eviction was before a Civil Court in execution the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to execution would apply to such proceedings in execution except to the extent to which such procedure was modified by any express provisions of the Rent Control Act.

Our attention was, however, invited to Sheik Ali v. Sheik Mohamed, ILR (1966) Mad 551 = AIR 1967 Mad 45. In our opinion, the problem for decision there was totally different. What was held in that case was Section 44-A(1) did not address itself to any limitation and suggest that even for the purpose of limitation a foreign decree, when filed in the District Court in this country, should be taken to have been passed by it on the date it was passed by the original court.

4. The petition is dismissed with costs. Time for vacating three months.

5. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //