IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18744 of 2008(F) -------------------------- E.P.NO.577/2007 IN RCP.103/1999 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM RCP.2/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ NADUVANNURCHALIL PRAKASAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, PRAKASH FOOTWEARS, ROOM NO.39/884, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM-16. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.LAKSHMI, W/O.N.JANARDHANA IYER, RESIDING AT 'KAILAS', C.C.NO.39/895, CARRIER STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM-16. 2. P.NARAYANI, W/O.T.K.RAMASESHAN, RESIDING AT 'SREYAS', 2422, 16TH MAIN, H.A.L.II STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-8. 3. P.DHARMAMBAL, W/O.K.B.S.MANI, C-41, T.N.P.L. HOUSING COLONY, KAGIDAPURAM, PUGALLOOR, KARUR, TAMILNADU-639 136. 4. P.PARVATHY, W/O.V.ANANTHANARAYANAN, RESIDING AT 2061, 'AISWARYA', 17TH MAIN, FIRST CROSS, H.A.L. SECOND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN FOR R1-4 SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R1-4 SRI.BASIL MATHEW FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18744 of 2008(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION AS R.C.P.NO.103/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.NO.577/2007 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/1/2007 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION AS R.C.R.P.2/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/05/2008. \\TRUE COPY// P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).No.18744 of 2008-F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T J U D G M E N T RAMAN, J. The petitioner, who is the respondent in R.C.P.No.103/1999, is the tenant. The rent control petition was filed by the landlord under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Though it was resisted by the tenant, ultimately, an order of eviction was passed under Section 11(3) of the Act but dismissed the petition under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Though an appeal was filed therefrom by the tenant, he did not succeed. The appellate authority having confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court, there was a further revision before this Court which was also dismissed on 31/07/2003. Thus the order of eviction became final. Thereafter, execution petition was filed in 2007. 2. The tenant raised objection that there is undue delay in filing execution petition and even contended that the bona fide need as alleged is lost. W.P.(C).NO.18744/2008-F -:2:- 3. The court below found that the final order in the rent control petition was passed by this Court on 31/07/2003 and one month's time was granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. But he did not vacate. 4. The eviction was sought by the landlord for the purpose of occupying the same by her daughter, who is a deaf and dumb. Admittedly, no time limit is prescribed under the Act or Rules for execution of an order of eviction. Under Section 14 of the Act, the power is vested on the Munsiff to execute an order passed, as if it is a decree. In other words, the further proceedings in execution petition has to be carried out treating the same as though it is a decree. In the absence of the special provision fixing any period of limitation under the Statute, it has to be held that there is no period of limitation for executing the order passed by the Rent Control Court. So, however, the order has to be executed within a reasonable time. Even if, it is treated as an order passed by the Civil Court, the period of limitation is 12 years. Therefore, any period less than 12 years cannot prima facie be said to be unreasonable. In other words, even by treating the order of eviction as a decree, one cannot say in this case that it is beyond time. In this case, the order of eviction sought to be enforced by filing execution petition is in 2007, i.e., within four W.P.(C).NO.18744/2008-F -:3:- years. The landlord has also explained the circumstances under which the execution was delayed in the matter. In the circumstances, in the absence of any period prescribed under the Act it cannot be said that the present petition filed is beyond any reasonable time. If so, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought for sometime to vacate the premises. When the order of eviction itself had become final and when this Court has already granted one month's time, we do not think there is any justification for granting any further time to surrender the premises. Admittedly, when the landlord wanted the building for her daughter, who is a deaf and dumb, to start a business and to eke a livelihood, there cannot be any further delay in execution of the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms