V UTHIRAPATHI Vs. ASHRAB ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are disposing of this SLP by a reasoned order at the stage of admission, after condoining the delay. The SLP is preferred by the tenant against the order of the High Court of Madras in CRP 2272 of 1997 dated 19-9-1997 and the order dismissing the Review application No. 104 of 1997 dated 12-11-1997. The matter arises in execution proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The eviction proceedings under the Act were started in 1982 by the respondents' father in RGOP 17/1982. Eviction was ordered and the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority. The decree holder filed an execution petition (within time for filing an execution petition) but later he died on 27-2-1993. In the said pending execution petition, the respondents, who are the declare holder's legal representatives filed an interlocutory application for their impleadment as the legal representatives of the decree holder, on 26-4-1994. The petitioner-tenant contended in the execution Court that the impleadment application thus filed in the main execution petition was time-barred as it was filed beyond the period of one month specified in Rule 25 of the Rules. Rule 25 prescribes 'the time limit for bringing the legal representatives on record in proceedings under the Act'. Accepting the said objection, the impleadment application was dismissed.

(3.) The applicants in that IA filed CRP No. 2272/1997 in the High Court. By an order dated 19-9-1997, the High Court allowed the revision on the ground that under Section 18 of the Act, the Rent Controller has to execute the eviction order, "as if such order is an order of a Civil Court" and hence there was no question of limitation. The High Court relied upon a Division Bench in Subramania Pillai v. Rajakanni Nadar, (1971) 1 Mad LJ 223 rendered before the amendment of Section 18 by Act 23/73 and on N. Ramanujam Naidu v. Panchnath Mudaliar, (1980) 1 Mad LJ 232. Thereafter, the tenant filed a review application contending that the High Court, while allowing the revision, had not taken note of Hydro-Chains (P) Ltd. v. Mary Thomas Marattukulam, (1994) 2 Mad LW 443, which was confirmed by this Court in Hydro-Chains Pvt. Ltd. v. Thomas Marattukulam, (1994) 5 SCC 337 (1). The review application was disposed of on 12-11-1997 and it was held that it was not a fit case for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC inasmuch as, even if the application filed by the legal representatives of the landldord was beyond one month as stipulated in Rule 25, it was conceded for the tenant that the said heirs could file an independent execution petition and, therefore, there was no point in allowing the revision, dismissing the impleadment application filed in the execution application and permitting the heirs of the landlord to file a fresh execution petition. In the result, the review application was dismissed. It is against both these orders that the SLP is filed by the tenant.