Restoration after demolition does not create a fresh tenancy; tenant returns under the original lease and Article 137 governs enforcement.

An order restoring possession to a landlord for demolition or reconstruction under Section 12 does not extinguish the tenancy; the tenant re-enters under the original tenancy, not on fresh terms, and the landlord cannot insist on higher rent as a condition for restoration, though fair rent may be revised through the statutory remedy. An application by the tenant to enforce the landlord's undertaking for restoration is not governed by the execution rule for the landlord's decree; in the absence of a specific period, Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies. The restoration claim was therefore treated as within limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after possession is restored to the landlord for demolition and reconstruction under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the tenant re-enters under a fresh tenancy on fresh terms or under the original tenancy; (ii) whether an application by the tenant seeking enforcement of the landlord's undertaking for restoration of possession is governed by Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 or by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether, after possession is restored to the landlord for demolition and reconstruction under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the tenant re-enters under a fresh tenancy on fresh terms or under the original tenancy.

Analysis: Section 12 operates differently from the eviction provision and is intended to permit the landlord to obtain possession for repairs, alterations, additions, demolition, or reconstruction while preserving the tenant's right to return. The tenancy is not terminated merely because possession is delivered to the landlord for the limited statutory purpose. The tenant's right to re-enter survives, the lease continues, and the tenant returns under the same tenancy relationship, though rent remains suspended during the period when the landlord is in possession. If the statute permits revision or fixation of fair rent, the landlord may invoke that remedy, but fresh rent cannot be insisted upon as a condition precedent to re-entry.

Conclusion: The tenant is entitled to re-entry under the original tenancy, not under a fresh tenancy on new terms. The landlord cannot insist on a higher rent as a precondition for restoration of possession.

Issue (ii): Whether an application by the tenant seeking enforcement of the landlord's undertaking for restoration of possession is governed by Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 or by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Rule 23 governs execution applications by a decree-holder seeking enforcement of an order for delivery of possession in favour of the landlord. A tenant seeking restoration is not executing an order in his own favour but enforcing the landlord's undertaking, which is a distinct remedy. Such an application is therefore not governed by Rule 23. In the absence of a specific period, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, subject to the tenant acting within the time fixed by the Controller or, if none is fixed, within a reasonable time and promptly upon the landlord's offer.

Conclusion: The tenant's application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and is not barred by Rule 23.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme preserves the tenant's right of restoration after reconstruction on the original tenancy terms, while leaving the landlord free to seek lawful revision of fair rent. The tenant's restoration application was within limitation and the appeals were liable to fail.

Ratio Decidendi: An order under Section 12 for delivery of possession for demolition or reconstruction does not extinguish the tenancy; the tenant re-enters under the same tenancy, and an application to enforce the landlord's undertaking for restoration is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not by the execution-rule applicable to the landlord's decree.

---