Judgment : Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 is Ext.P6 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Pattambi holding that the Execution Petition seeking recovery of arrears of rent is not maintainable. 2. Evidently, E.P.No.1/2010 was filed before the learned Munsiff in RCP NO.19/1997 under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965. It is clear to us that orders, which are executable by the Principal Munsiff of the Station by virtue of Section 14, are eviction orders under Section 11, summary orders of eviction under Section 12, orders passed by the Accommodation Controller under Section 13, orders awarding cost under Section 19, orders directing restoration of/reinduction into possession under Section 33, appellate orders under Section 18 and revisional orders under Section 20. There is no scope for passing money decree for recovery of arrears of rent under the above provisions of Act 2 of 1965. The execution petition seeking recovery of arrears of rent per se will not be maintainable. 3. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is conceded that no decree or order for recovery of arrears was passed in favour of the writ petitioner/landlord. It was by Ext.P3 order in RCR NO.31/2003 that this Court confirmed the order of eviction passed by the statutory authorities under the Rent Control Act viz. the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. Under that order, this Court, after confirming the order of eviction, became inclined to grant time to the tenant to vacate the premises till 31/3/2010 subject to the condition that an affidavit shall be filed and the further condition that the tenant shall pay rent up to the date within one month and also occupational charges till the date he surrenders. 4. It is submitted by Smt.Preethy Karunakaran learned counsel for the respondent that even before Ext.P3 judgment was delivered by this Court on 13/10/2009, the respondent tenant surrendered the premises on his own. Even though the above submission of Smt. Preethy Karunakuaran is disputed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, we are inclined to accept the above submission. This means that the respondent/tenant did not avail the benefit of time granted by this Court. Even otherwise, we do not find any infirmity about the view taken by the learned Munsiff in Ext.P6 that execution petition is not maintainable on our own view expressed in paragraph two. This means that the respondent/tenant did not avail the benefit of time granted by this Court. Even otherwise, we do not find any infirmity about the view taken by the learned Munsiff in Ext.P6 that execution petition is not maintainable on our own view expressed in paragraph two. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner requested that the writ petitioner be permitted to institute a regular suit for recovery of the rent which was actually due from the respondent till the date of actual surrender by the respondent. Considering that request, even as we dismiss the writ petition, since there is no warrant at all for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, we order that in case the writ petitioner files a suit against the respondent for recovery of rent arrears due within two weeks from today, the time during which E.P. No.1/2010 was pending before the Munsiff Court, Pattambi and till the date of filing of the prospective suit, will be excluded from the reckoning for limitation applying Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act.