ARUNACHALAM Vs. KESAVAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, dismissing E. A. No. 17 of 1982 in E. P. No. 14 of 1982 in O. S. Mo. 36 of 1980 filed under section 151, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, for stay of execution of the decree in O. S. No. 36 of 1980. On 4th January, 1980, the respondent herein instituted O. S. No. 36 of 1980, District Munsifs Court, Ramanathapuram, for recovery of possession of the building in the occupation of the petitioner and also of Rs. 1,150 towards arrears of rent. According to the case of the respondent, the building in question had been put up five years prior to the date of the suit and had been let out to the petitioner initially for a period of two years on 22nd November, 1975, but that the tenancy continued even thereafter and the petitioner had not paid the rent for the period 1st January, 1978 to 30th November, 1979. A notice dated 27th August, 1979 terminating the tenancy by 30th September, 1979, was also issued to the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent instituted the suit O. S. No. 36 of 1980, District Munsifs Court, Ramanathapuram, for the reliefs set out earlier. That suit was resisted by the petitioner herein on the ground that he was not in arrears of rent, that the respondent had earlier filed H. R. C. No. 27 of 1978 for fixation of fair rent but had not pursued it and that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would apply and therefore, the suit will not be maintainable.

(2.) On a consideration of the evidence let in, the learned District Munsif found that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner had been constructed and notified by the respondent within a period of five years prior to the institution of the suit and there-fore, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to non-suit the respondent. The termination of the tenancy was held to have been validly done. The arrears of rent as claimed by the respondent was found to be due. On these canclusions, on 28th January, 1982, the respondent was granted a decree for recovery of possession of the building in the occupation of the petitioner as well as a sum of Rs. 1,150 representing arrears of rent. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A. S. No. 94 of 1981 to the District Court of Ramnad at Madurai. On 9th November, 1981, while holding that the provisions of the Act will not bar the granting of a decree in the suit and that the decree granted by the learned District Munsif is not liable to be interfered with, the appeal was dismissed. With a decree to recover possession of the building, on 6th January 1982,the respondent herein filed E. P. No. 14 of 1982 and on that application, on 19th January, 1982, an order for delivery by 30th January, 1982 was passed. Delivery could not be effected as the premises was found to be locked, meanwhile, on 30th January, 1982, the petitioner, herein filed an application in E. A. No. 17 of 1982 purporting to be under section 151, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, for stay of execution of the decree in O. S. No. 36 of 1980 on the ground that the decree is not executable and the order for delivery obtained by the respondent is erroneous and therefore, further proceedings in the E. P. should be stayed.

(3.) This application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that no reason has been given for claiming that the decree is not executable and that there was no reason whatever for stay of execution of the decree or the delivery proceedings. A further plea was also raised that the petition is not maintainable. The learned District Munsif found that the decree passed in O. S. No. 36 of 1980 is executable and in that view, over-ruled the objections raised by the petitioner and dismissed the petition. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition.