R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. There are two cases relating to two premises, both being part of the same building, owned by the same owners but held on tenancy by two tenants. The two premises are described as Door Nos.11-45-60 and 11-45-60/A situated at Thavvavari Street of Vijayawada. The tenants in the twopremises were holding each at a monthly rent of Rs.250/- under the appellant-landlords. For convenience sake we would refer to the parties only as 'landlord' and 'tenant'.
2. The landlord initiated proceedings for recovery of possession over the tenancy premises lleging that the same were required bona fide by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing and such demolition was to be made for the purpose of erecting new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, a ground contemplated under Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short). The landlord was successful in both the proceedings and vide the order dated 21.2.1986, the Rent Controller directed the two tenants to put the landlord in possession of he tenancy premises within one month from the date of the order. The tenants preferred appeals which were dismissed on 5.2.1987. The time appointed for compliance by the tenants was extended by one month. The tenants delivered possession over their respective shops to the landlord on 5.3.1987. The landlord gave an undertaking to the effect that on completion of the work of repairs and alteration etc. in the building the same will be offered to the tenants.
3. The work was completed by the landlord within six months. On 3.9.1987, the landlord sent an offer to each of the two tenants to occupy the rebuilt premises subject to payment of Rs.2400/- p.m. by each of the two tenants. The area of the two shops in question before renovation was 27 ft. x 11 ft. = 297 sft. each. It appears that the building continues to be non-residential as before but it has undergone structural alterations of far-reaching character. It is clear from the description of premises contained in the offer in writing made by the landlord on 03.09.87, relevant parts whereof read as under:__
'You are aware that in my building D.no.11-45-60/A in Thavvavari Street, Vijayawada-1, in front of the Room (which was leased to you previously), a new shop room measuring about 11 x 12 feet has been constructed with the concrete Pillers, RRC roofing and iron shutter facing the northern side. The previous room which is now situated inside of this newly constructed shop room, is completely altered by removing the wooden door, window, walls, middle piller, arches, and partition walls, and by putting new iron beams (girders) in the place of partition walls and by constructing new walls, by removing wooden beams (girders) in their places, by carrying out new cement planting to all walls, and raising height of the ground floor to one foot and putting new cuddappha stone slab flooring. All these rooms including newly constructed front shop room are being completely altered constructed with new additional constructions in order to make one big shop measuring about 40 x 11 feet with decent appearance as suitable for the offices, or wholesale shops. x x x
I offer this newly constructed shop/h ll (with iron shutter) me suring bout 40 x 11 feet (including newly constructed front shop room) to you for le se for the rent of Rs.2400/- Rupees two thous nd four hundred only per month, nd this rent is ccording to the m rket r te of the rents prev iling in this import nt business re .'
4. The ten nts did not reply. On 15.12.1987, the ten nts filed two execution petitions seeking enforcement of the undert king given by the l ndlord nd recovery of possession to the ten nts from the l ndlord. By order d ted 6.1.1989, the executing Court directed the execution petitions to be dismissed solely on the ground th t they were b rred by limit tion s they were filed on 15.12.1987 nd not within six months from the d te of the ppell te orders i.e. 5.2.1987 ( s required by Rule 23, quoted herein fter). The ten nts preferred two revision petitions before the High Court which h ve been disposed of by common order. The revision petitions h ve been llowed. The l ndlord h s been directed to restore possession to the ten nts. The High Court h s left it open to the l ndlord to t ke necess ry steps for cl iming f ir rent from the ten nts by ppro ching the Rent Controller for the purpose. Feeling ggrieved the l ndlord h s come up in ppe ls by speci l le ve.
5. Two questions rise for decision:-
(1) Whether new ten ncy comes into existence, between the p rties, on possession being restored to the ten nt over the newly erected building or ny p rt thereof, which would entitle the l ndlord to settle the rent nd other terms of le se fresh?
(2) Wh t is the period of limit tion for filing n pplic tion by the ten nt seeking enforcement of the order of the Rent Controller m de under Section 12 of the ct?
6. Both the boves id issues c ll for construing the provision en cted in Section 12 of the ct.
7. The ndhr Pr desh Buildings (Le se, Rent nd Eviction) Control ct 1960 ( ct No.15 of 1960) w s en cted to repl ce former two St te en ctments n mely the M dr s Buildings (Le se nd Rent) Control ct, 1949 (M dr s ct XXV of 1949) nd the Hyder b d Houses (Rent, Eviction nd Le se) Control ct, 1954 (Hyder b d ct XX of 1954) which were oper ting in two re s of the St te n mely the ndhr re nd Tel ng n re s respectively. It seems th t in the predecessor legisl tion there w s no provision simil r to the one cont ined in Section 12 of the ct of 1960. The St tement of Objects nd Re sons st tes inter li th t new ct w s introducing some import nt new provisions nd one of them being ___ 'to m ke provision empowering the Rent Controller to direct the ten nt to h nd over possession of building to the l ndlord to en ble him to reconstruct or renov te the old building subject to cert in s fegu rds'. Section 12 of the ct with which we re concerned re ds s under:-
'12. Recovery of possession by l ndlord for rep irs, lter tions or dditions or for reconstruction:-
(1) Notwithst nding nything in this ct on n pplic tion m de by l ndlord, the Controller m y, if he is s tisfied:
( ) th t the building is re son ble nd bon fide required by the l ndlord for c rrying out rep irs, lter tions or dditions which c nnot be c rried out without the building being v c ted; or
(b) th t the building consists of not more th n two floors nd is re son ble nd bon fide required by the l ndlord for the immedi te purpose of demolishing it nd such demolition is to be m de for the purpose of erecting new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished,
p ss n order directing the ten nt to deliver possession of the building to the l ndlord before specified d te.
(2) No order for recovery of possession under this Section sh ll be p ssed unless the l ndlord gives n undert king th t the building on completion of the rep irs, lter tions or dditions or the new building on its completion will be offered to the ten nt, who delivered possession in pursu nce of n order under sub-section (1), for his occup tion before the expiry of such period s m y be specified by the Controller in this beh lf.
(3) In c se the ten nt, to whom the building or the new building, s the c se m y be, is offered under sub-section (2) by the l ndlord does not w nt to occupy it the l ndlord sh ll give notice of v c ncy in writing to the uthorized officer under sub- section (1) of Section 3.
(4) Nothing in this Section sh ll entitle the l ndlord, who h s recovered possession of the building for rep irs, lter tions or dditions or for reconstruction to convert residenti l building into non-residenti l building or residenti l building unless such conversion is permitted by the Controller t the time of p ssing n order under sub-section (1).'
8. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 30 of the ct, rules h ve been fr med by the Government of ndhr Pr desh, c lled the ndhr Pr desh Buildings (Le se, Rent nd Eviction) Control Rules, 1961. The relev nt p rt of Rule 23, with which we re concerned, is extr cted nd reproduced hereunder:-
'23. (1) Every pplic tion for the execution of orders p ssed under this ct sh ll be in writing signed nd verified by the decree-holder nd filed before the Controller within six months from the d te of the order ccomp nied by certified copy of the order concerned together with the necess ry process fee:
Provided th t n pplic tion m y be dmitted fter the specified period if the pplic nt s tisfied the Controller th t he h s sufficient c use for not preferring the pplic tion within such period.
(2) On receipt of n pplic tion for the execution of order s provided by sub-rule (1), the Controller sh ll scert in whether ll the requirements h ve been complied, nd if they h ve not been complied, the Controller m y reject the pplic tion or m y llow the defect to be remedied within the time to be fixed by him.
(3) & (4) xxx xxx xxx
(5) n order of eviction p ssed under Sections 10, 12, nd 13 sh ll be executed by evicting the persons g inst whom the order w s p ssed or ny other persons bound by the s id order nd by delivering the v c nt possession of the building in reg rd to which the order w s p ssed either to the person in whose f vour the order w s p ssed or to such person s he m y ppoint to t ke delivery on his beh lf.
(6) to (8) xxx xxx xxx'
9. The le ses of immov ble property nd the rel tionship between l ndlord nd ten nt re governed by Ch pter V of the Tr nsfer of Property ct, 1882. The rights nd li bilities of lesser land lessee re st ted in Section 108 of the T.P. ct which pply subject to the contr ct or loc l us ge to the contr ry. Under Cl use (b) nd (c) thereof, not only the lesser is bound on the lessee's request to put him in possession of the property but there is lso n implied coven nt for pe ceful possession nd enjoyment of the le sed property by the ten nt. So long s the lessee p ys the rent reserved by the le se nd performs the oblig tions c st on him by the contr ct of le se, he is entitled to hold nd enjoy the property without interruption by nyone including the lesser. Under Cl use (l) the lessee is bound to p y or tender, t the proper time nd pl ce, the premium or rent to the lesser.
10. There h s developed wh t is known s the doctrine of suspension of rent b sed on principles of justice, equity nd good conscience. If the lessee is dispossessed by the lesser from the le sed property the oblig tion of the lessee to p y rent to the lesser is suspended.
11. In V. Dh n p l Chetti r b v. Yesodi mm l ___ M of the T.P. ct is further restricted nd fettered by the provisions of the Rent Restriction ct. In spite of the contr ct of le se h ving expired or termin ted, the ten nt ___ lessee continues in possession under the protective wing of the Rent Restriction ct until the lessee loses th t protection. The lessee is not bound to v c te nor c n the lesser-lanlord exercises his right of re-entry unless ground entitling him to do so within the me ning of the Rent ct h s been m de out nd est blished in court of l w. The l ndlord-ten nt rel tionship st nds sn pped nd the ten ncy comes to n end only on decree or order in th t reg rd being p ssed by competent court. Thus, the contr ctu l le se m y h ve come to n end nd the l ndlord-ten nt rel tionship m y h ve ce sed to exist under the contr ct or the T.P. ct, yet the s me continues to exist for the purpose of Rent ct.
12. With this much pref tory st tement we proceed to ex mine the provisions of the .P. ct.
13. The He ding given to Section 10 of the ct is ___ 'Eviction of ten nts'. It confers protection on the ten nt to occupy the ten ncy premises by providing th t the ten nt sh ll not be evicted whether in execution of decree or otherwise except in ccord nce with the provisions of Section 10 or Sections 12 nd 13. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 enumer tes the grounds on the v il bility whereof the ten nt becomes li ble to be evicted. The provision opens by en cting th t l ndlord who seeks to evict his ten nt sh ll pply to the Controller for direction in th t beh lf. If the Controller, fter he ring both the p rties, is s tisfied of the v il bility of ny one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) being m de out, the Controller sh ll m ke n order directing the ten nt to put the l ndlord in possession of the building. The He dings given to Sections 12 nd 13 spe k of 'Recovery of possession by l ndlord for rep irs, lter tions or dditions or for reconstruction' of buildings.
14. The view is now settled th t the He dings or Titles pre-fixed to sections or group of sections c n be referred to in construing n ct of the Legisl ture. But conflicting opinions h ve been expressed on the question s to wh t weight should be tt ched to the He dings or Titles. ccording to one view, the He dings might be tre ted s pre mbles to the provisions following them so s to be reg rded s giving the key to opening the mind of the dr ftsm n of the cl uses rr nged thereunder. ccording to the other view, resort to He ding c n only be t ken when the en cting words re mbiguous. They c nnot control the me ning of pl in words but they m y expl in mbiguities. (See: Principles of St tutory Interpret tion by Justice G.P. Singh, Ninth Edition, 2004, pp.152,155). In our opinion, it is permissible to ssign the He ding or Title of section limited role to pl y in the construction of st tutes. They m y be t ken s very bro d nd gener l indic tors of the n ture of the subject-m tter de lt with thereunder. The He ding or Title m y lso be t ken s condensed n me ssigned to indic te collectively the ch r cteristics of the subject-m tter de lt with by the en ctment underne th; though the n me would lw ys be brief h ving its own limit tions. In c se of conflict between the pl in l ngu ge of the provision nd the me ning of the He ding or Title, the He ding or Title would not control the me ning which is cle rly nd pl inly discernible from the l ngu ge of the provision thereunder.
15. In the present c se, Sections 10 nd, 12 nd 13 re pl ced in close proximity nd yet ssigned different titles which is suggestive of the legisl tive intent th t the subject-m tter de lt with under the two he dings, differently n med, is different. comp r tive re ding of Section 10 with Sections 12 nd 13 shows th t while sub-section (2) of Section 10 contempl tes the ten nt being directed to put the l ndlord in possession of the buildings consequent upon ground for eviction of ten nt h ving been m de out nd the l ndlord h ving succeeded in m king out c se for eviction of his ten nt. nd so, the delivery of possession by ten nt to l ndlord is in effect eviction of ten nt by l ndlord. The ten ncy itself is determined. Under Sections 12 nd 13 the Controller orders the ten nt to deliver possession of the buildings to the l ndlord for specific purpose nd ccording to c lend r of events which binds the l ndlord nd the ten nt both. In other words, under Sections 12 nd 13 the ten nt is not evicted; the ten ncy does not come to n end; the le se continues to survive; nd yet the ten nt ce ses to be in ctu l possession of the building which is pl ced in possession of the l ndlord for specified purpose. Under Cl use ( ) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 the purpose is 'for c rrying out rep irs, lter tions or dditions which c nnot be c rried out without the building being v c ted'. Under Cl use (b) of sub-section (1) the purpose is 'the immedi te purpose of demolishing it nd such demolition is to be m de for the purpose of erecting new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished.' The provision seeks to chieve multi-purpose. The ten nt is protected bec use his ten ncy does not come to n end nd his right to re-occupy the building ___ rep ired, ltered, dded or erected ___ continues to survive. The l ndlord is benefited bec use but for the ten nt h ving been directed to deliver possession to him he could not h ve c rried out such rep irs, etc. or rebuilding. The public interest is served s the buildings re kept in good st te nd h bit ble nd new building ctivity continues to be c rried on.
16. Under Section 12, s we h ve lre dy st ted, the le se does not come to n end, nor the ten ncy is termin ted, merely on ccount of possession of the building h ving been delivered to the l ndlord; nor does it come to n end nor extinguished bec use the old building h s been demolished nd new building h s been erected. The ten nt, when he re-enters into possession, does so under the origin l ten ncy which st nds st tutorily protected under the ct nd he h s not been evicted nor held li ble to be evicted. In spite of the building h ving been rep ired, ltered, dded to or re-erected, the ten nt sh ll re- enter to occupy the premises on the s me terms nd conditions on which he w s occupying the building on the d te on which he delivered possession to the l ndlord, pursu nt to the order of the Controller. The rent for the period between the d te of delivery of possession by ten nt to l ndlord nd the d te of ten nt's re-entry sh ll rem in suspended bec use during th t period it w s not the ten nt but the l ndlord who w s in possession of the building. On the ten nt's re- entry into possession of the building, his oblig tion to p y the s me rent which he w s p ying on the d te of delivery of possession by him to the l ndlord, sh ll st nd revived. If the l w permits revision of rent or fix tion of st nd rd rent fresh, the l ndlord would be t liberty to invoke th t provision nd revise the rent consistently with such provisions. But the revision of rent c nnot be insisted on by the l ndlord s condition precedent to re-entry by the ten nt.
17. Therefore, the l ndlord in the present c se w s not justified in offering the premises to the ten nts for re-entry by qu lifying the offer for p yment of higher r te of rent.
18. In Kondeti Sury n r y n nd Ors. v. Pinninti Sesh giri R o __ (1995) 2 ndh. L.T. 100, le rned Single Judge of the High Court of ndhr Pr desh noticed G.O.M. No.636, G. .D. d ted 29.12.1983 which exempted newly constructed buildings from the oper tion of the ct, with effect from 26.10.1983, for period of 10 ye rs from the d te on which their construction is completed. The Notific tion w s issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 26 of the ct. In the opinion of the le rned Single Judge, in smuch s the newly constructed building would rem in exempted for period of 10 ye rs from the oper tion of the ct, it w s not necess ry for the l ndlord to give n undert king s contempl ted by sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the ct nd the right of re-induction of the ten nt rem ined suspended for period of 10 ye rs from the d te of completion of the construction of building. This judgment w s put in issue in ppe l by speci l le ve before this Court. Division Bench of this Court by its judgment d ted 04.11.1999 (reported s Kondeti Sury n r y n nd Ors. v. Pinninthi Sesh giri R o ___ set side the judgment of the ndhr Pr desh High Court nd held th t where l ndlord requires building to be demolished necess rily he h s to reconstruct the building on the s me site of the building nd on reconstruction of new building the ten nt h s to be llowed to re-enter in the s id premises. If n interpret tion, s given by the le rned Single Judge of the ndhr Pr desh High Court, w s to be ccepted then it would encour ge ny unscrupulous l ndlord to get eviction of ten nt on the ground of demolition of the building which would be repugn nt to the object of the ct, s id this Court. We m y h sten to dd th t the judgment of the ndhr Pr desh High Court reversed by this Court suffered from the f ll cy of re ding Section 12, s providing ground to the l ndlord for evicting the ten nt which it is not.
19. perus l of Section 12 of the ct shows the order being p ssed by the Controller directing the ten nt to deliver possession of the building to the l ndlord before specified d te, subject to the Controller being s tisfied of the v il bility of the ground for m king such n order.
20. n order for recovery of possession under Section 12 c nnot be p ssed unless the l ndlord gives n undert king for offering the building b ck to the ten nt on the expiry of such period s m y be specified by the Controller in this beh lf. If the ten nt does not v il the offer still the l ndlord c nnot occupy the building. He h s to notify the v c ncy in writing to the uthorized officer under Section (1) of Section 3. The n ture of user fter reconstruction must rem in the s me s it w s before, th t is to s y, residenti l building must continue to be residenti l building nd non-residenti l building must continue to be non-residenti l building on re-erection unless permitted otherwise by the Controller. Section 12 empowers the Controller to specify time or ppoint the d tes for three purposes: (i) the d te by which the ten nt h s to deliver possession of the building to the l ndlord, (ii) the d te by which the l ndlord h s to complete the work, nd (iii) the d te by which the l ndlord sh ll offer the building to the ten nt. The controller c n lso specify the d te or time before the expiry of which the ten nt must give response to the offer m de by the l ndlord. 'Such period s m y be specified by the Controller in this beh lf'--the expression s employed in Sub-section (2) of Section 12 qu lifies ll the events within the scope of th t provision. Once these d tes h ve been specified there will be no difficulty of implement tion.
21. H ving reconstructed the premises tot lly new, should the rent rem in st tic? We c n underst nd the premises being just rep ired or only essenti l rep irs h ving been c rried out by the l ndlord in disch rge of his oblig tion to secure pe ceful enjoyment nd possession of the ten ncy premises by the ten nt for the purpose for which the ten ncy w s cre ted. So long s the premises rem in the s me, one c n underst nd nd ssume th t the rent ppointed for the premises either by greement or s f ir rent h s lre dy t ken c re of the oblig tion of the l ndlord of m int ining the premises in good nd h bit ble condition. In such c ses, it m y not be necess ry to revise the r te of rent. However, when the premises h ve been dded to, improved, ltered or rebuilt consequent upon the s tisf ction of the Controller h ving been rrived t in th t reg rd, it will be unre son ble nd c pricious to keep the premises tied down to the old r te of rent which w s being p id for premises which were ____ m y be ____ dil pid ted or not worthy of hum n h bit tion. Such provision, if cont ined in ny Legisl tion, would be li ble to be struck down s unconstitution l on ccount of being rbitr ry, c pricious nd unre son ble. However, so f r s the ct is concerned, c re h s been t ken by Section 5 thereof which provides s under:-
'5. Incre se in f ir rent in wh t c ses dmissible: -(1) When the f ir rent of building h s been fixed under this ct, no further incre se in such f ir rent sh ll be permissible except in c ses where some ddition, improvement or lter tion h s been c rried out t the l ndlord's expense nd if the building is then in the occup tion of ten nt, t his request:
Provided th t the incre se sh ll be c lcul ted t r te per nnum not exceeding six per cent of the cost of such ddition, improvement or lter tion c rried out nd the f ir rent s incre sed under this sub-section sh ll not exceed the f ir rent p y ble under this ct for simil r building in the s me loc lity with such ddition, improvement or lter tion:
Provided further th t, ny dispute between l ndlord nd the ten nt in reg rd to ny incre se cl imed under this sub-section, sh ll be decided by the Controller.'
22. Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 contempl tes delivery of possession by the ten nt to the l ndlord for rep irs, lter tions, dditions nd demolition nd reconstruction. Out of these four situ tions, Section 5 permits revision of rent in c ses of lter tions, dditions nd rep irs mounting to improvements. reconstruction c rried out pursu nt to order of Controller m de under Section 12(1) of the ct is included within the me ning of the expression ' ddition, improvement or lter tion' which, in our opinion, seems to h ve been used in wider sense. In such c ses, it will be permissible to h ve the rent fixed consistently with the principles l id down in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 5. In the c ses covered by Section 12, Section 5 is v il ble for fix tion of f ir rent by w y of revision over the r te of rent t which it w s being p id previously. The opening p rt of sub-Section (1) of Section 5 is divisible into two p rts, comprehending two situ tions, s under :
(i) Where the f ir rent of building h s been fixed under this ct, no further incre se in such f ir rent sh ll be permissible; except in c ses
(ii) where some ddition, improvement or lter tion h s been c rried out t the l ndlord's expense nd if the building is then in occup tion of ten nt, t his request.
23. The next following two provisos respectively l y down the formul for c lcul ting the revision in rent nd confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Controller to decide the dispute.
24. Sections 4, 5 nd 6 re p rts of one scheme. Wh t first cl use of sub-Section (1) of Section 5 provides is th t the f ir rent of building h ving been fixed under Section 4 the s me c nnot be re- fixed once g in. It is the rule of one-time fix tion of f ir rent. This rule does not pply to ny c se of ddition, improvement or lter tion h ving been c rried out s st ted in the l ter cl use. It is n exception to 'one-time fix tion of f ir rent' rule. In spite of f ir rent of building h ving been fixed lre dy, the f ir rent c n be fixed g in s per formul l id down in the proviso on n ddition, improvement or lter tion h ving been c rried out. Such c ses re excepted from the prohibition of 'no further incre se'.
25. Now rises for determin tion the question of limit tion for filing of execution petition by the l ndlord or by the ten nt. Here g in, perus l of the scheme of Section 12 shows th t the provision contempl tes p ssing of n order directing the ten nt to deliver the possession of the building to the l ndlord before specified d te under sub-section (1) of Section 12. Sub-Section (2) does not contempl te n order for re-entry by ten nt into possession being m de by the Controller; wh t the Controller does is to ccept the undert king given by the l ndlord without which n order for delivery of possession by the ten nt in f vour of the l ndlord under sub-section (1) sh ll not be p ssed. The specific tion of d tes by the Controller is depend nt on nd consequent to the undert king given by the l ndlord s condition precedent to the p ssing of the decree. If the l ndlord does not give the undert king contempl ted by sub-section (2), there sh ll be no order for recovery of possession under sub-section (1).
26. Where the ten nt f ils to deliver possession on or before the specified d te to the l ndlord, the l ndlord m y execute the order of the Controller by filing n execution petition which will be governed by Rule 23 nd hence sh ll h ve to be filed within period of six months from the d te of the order. The pplic tion is by l ndlord who is decree-holder h ving n execut ble order in his f vour in his h nds. ten nt exercising his right of re-entry is neither decree-holder nor seeking execution of ny order in his f vour; he is seeking enforcement of solemn undert king given by the l ndlord but for which the Controller would not h ve m de n order under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the ct. The ten nt's pplic tion is not n pplic tion for execution nd hence does not ttr ct pplic bility of Rule 23. It would be governed by rticle 137 of the Limit tion ct, 1963; it being n pplic tion for which no period of limit tion is provided elsewhere nd the period of three ye rs sh ll begin to run when the right to pply ccrues. The right to pply will ccrue on the d te specified by the Controller under sub-section (2) in this beh lf. The period of limit tion prescribed by Rule 23 m y become otiose if pplied to ten nt s the period for completion of building by l ndlord m y itself be more th n six months nd the period of limit tion for ten nt if governed by Rule 23 would h ve lre dy expired by th t time. n pplic tion filed before Rent Controller c n ttr ct pplic bility of Limit tion ct, 1963 (See Mukri Gop l n v. Cheppil t Puth npur yil boob cker . There re three single-Judge Bench decisions of ndhr Pr desh High Court, n mely, K.S. H num nth r y pp v. .N. Vitt l R o 1987 (1) LT 474 K. M nik R o nd Ors. v. Smt. M. Biksh p mm & nr. 1987 (2) LT 15 nd N vin Ch ndr v. Smt. Prem B i Pitti 1992(3) LT 181 t king the view th t the limit tion for pplic tion by ten nt seeking restor tion of possession to him is governed by Rule 23. These decisions do not l y down the correct l w nd re overruled.
27. However, we h sten to dd th t the ten nt must exercise his right to recover possession within the time ppointed by the Controller for the purpose or if no such time is ppointed then within re son ble time nd promptly on receiving offer from the l ndlord in th t reg rd f iling which the right of the ten nt to seek restor tion of possession sh ll be lost. The ten nt who h s llowed the time ppointed by the Controller to l pse or f iled to v il the offer m de by l ndlord within re son ble time need not be llowed relief by the Controller in spite of his pplic tion being within limit tion under rticle 137 of the Limit tion ct. The limit tion of three ye rs is the outer limit of time v il ble to ten nt seeking recovery of possession when the l ndlord h s def ulted.
28. Hence, in the present c se, the pplic tion filed by the ten nt for enforcing the right of re-entry pursu nt to the undert king given by the l ndlord, whether incorpor ted in the order of the Controller or not, c nnot be s id to be b rred by limit tion. It is futile to determine the question of limit tion by reference to Rule 23 bove s id. The High Court h s rightly llowed the revision petitions holding the pplic tion filed by the te nt to be within limit tion nd rightly held th t it w s open to the l ndlord to t ke necess ry steps for cl iming f ir rent. However, we cl rify th t the l ndlord sh ll be entitled to cl im f ir rent s is permitted by l w nd till then the ten nt sh ll be li ble to p y the rent t the s me r te t which it w s being p id.
29. Before p rting we notice th t when the revisions filed by the ten nt were llowed by the High Court on 16.10.1998 it w s brought to the notice of the High Court by the l ndlord, t the time of pronouncement of the judgment, th t the reconstructed building h d lre dy been le sed out to some other persons, nd therefore, the High Court directed the oper tion of its judgment to rem in st yed for ppro ching this Court. s to when nd in wh t circumst nces third persons h ve been inducted into possession of re-built building, re not known s the s me re not discernible from the record. Before giving effect to the order of the High Court, the Controller sh ll h ve to give notice to such third p rties who re presently in possession nd they sh ll h ve to be he rd. It is difficult for us to nticip te wh t these third persons in possession m y h ve to s y nd, therefore, we m ke no observ tion on their rights, if ny, nd le ve it open to be determined by the Controller.
30. Subject to the bove s id c ution ry observ tion, the ppe ls re dismissed.