S M JAFFAR MOHIDEEN Vs. E FATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions arise out of a single proceeding before the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, hence were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The matter arises under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

(3.) The Petitioners herein filed R.C.A. No. 463 of 1997 against the dismissal of an eviction petition, which was initially filed against one Mr. K. Ibrahim. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole Respondent died on 21.09.2000 leaving behind the Respondents 2 to 4 herein as his legal representatives. The Petitioners filed three miscellaneous petitions in M.P. Nos. 324, 325 & 326 of 2001 to permit the Petitioners to bring the legal representatives on record as Respondents 2 to 4 in R.C.A. No. 463 of 1997, to condone the delay of 52 days in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives on record and to set aside the abatement. In the common affidavit filed in support of these petitions, it was stated that the counsel appearing for the deceased Respondent Mr. K. Ibrahim served a letter on the counsel appearing for the Petitioners, dated 11.12.2000, stating that Mr. K. Ibrahim died on 21.09.2000 and also gave the details as regards his legal heirs. It is stated that the Petitioner was suffering from viral fever and was taking treatment, he was not in a position to meet his counsel to give instructions to file the petitions and therefore, delay has occurred and prayed for condonation of delay. Prayer was also made for setting aside the abatement. These applications were resisted by a common counter affidavit inter alia contending that the R.C.A. was filed against the dismissal of the eviction petition made in R.C.O.P. No. 3692 of 1987, dated 06.12.1996 and that intimation was given by their counsel by notice dated 11.12.2000 and the application for condonation of delay is not maintainable and the delay is more than 150 days and the application to set aside the abatement under Order 22, Rule 4(3) Code of Code of Civil Procedure is also filed beyond 30 days and the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable and therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. The learned Appellate Authority by a common order dated 22.03.2002, dismissed all the applications holding that the delay has not been sufficiently explained. Aggrieved by the same, these revision petitions have been filed.