TRILOGCHAOD BAFAA Vs. CHELLIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant against whom an order of eviction was passed in R.C.O.P.No.2344 of 1982 under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, 18 of 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The tenant took the matter up to the Supreme Court, but was unsuccessful throughout. The landlady passed away on 16th December, 1983. The Special Leave Petition filed by the tenant against the dismissal of the civil revision petition, namely C.R.P.No.4074/83, was after the death of the landlady and in that proceeding before the Supreme Court, the respondent herein was shown as the respondent. The respondent filed E.P.No.667/84 and M.P.No.493/84 to enforce the said order of eviction. In M.P.No.493/84 he wanted that he should be impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased landlady Kannammal. The petitioner-tenant resisted that application on the ground that the respondent is not the legal representative, nor is he the legal heir of the deceased Kannammal and that the petition not having been filed within 30 days from the date of the death of the landlady, it is liable to be dismissed as barred by time. The Rent Controller ordered the said petition. The petitioner's appeal, R.C.A.No.784/85 was also dismissed. Hence the present revision.

(2.) Let me first of all advert to the argument based on rule 25 of the rules framed under the Act. The said rule runs as follows:

(3.) It is true in Ghose Khar. v. Rent Controller, Coimbatore, (1971) 84 L.W.568, Ratnavel Pandian, J, has observed as follows: