SULTAN SINGH, J ORAL

( 1 ) RESPONDENT Verha Mal filed a petition for fixation of standard rent which was dismissed on 6-3-76 by the Additional Rent Controller. On appeal, the Tribunal by order dated 16-8-1979 fixed the standard rent at Rs. 75 per month, although the agreed rent was Rs. 175 per month. The landlord filed second appeal and during its pendency Mehar Elahi appellant died on 8-8-80. It appears that the respondent on 27-10-80 made an application before the Additional Rent Controller for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of the deceased appellant. In reply it was submitted on behalf of the landlord that Manzoor Elahi was to be substituted as the deceased had executed a Will in his favour. By order dated 6-3-81 Manzoor Elahi was substituted.

( 2 ) ON 5-1-1982 the respondent-tenant filed an application (C. M. 266/82) in this second appeal praying that after death of the appellant his heirs having not been substituted. the appeal has abated. In reply Manzoor Elahi the appellant s heir filed an application (C. H. 1720/82) on 24-3-82 under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and another application (C. M. 1721/82) under section 5 of the limitation Act alleging that there was no necessity of filing a. separate application for bringing on record the heirs of the deceased-appellan. t in second appeal as the respondent had already filed an application before the additional Rent Controller, who by order dated 6-3-81 had directed substitution of Manzoor Elahi. In his application for condonation of delay the applicant submits that there was no period of limitation prescribed for filing application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased in proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act. Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code provides for legal representatives of deceased plaintiff to be made parties to the suit. Rule II of Order 22 of the Code provides that the word plaintiff shall include appellant and the word suit shall include appeal . Thus if there is death of plaintiff of, appellant Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code applies. Further if appellant dies,, an application is to be made by his heir in the appeal. If the respondent who was like plaintiff before the Additional Rent Controller and has made an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code when no proceedings were pending before the Controller it would not absolve the appellant from taking steps under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code.

( 3 ) THE appellant died on 8-8-80. On 27-10-80 the respondent brought to the notice of the applicant about the pendency of the proceedings as the respondent filed an application for substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code. Order of substitution was passed by the Additional Controller on 6-3-81. The heirs of the deceased-appellant were thus aware that proceedings for fixation of standard rent were pending. On 5-1-82 an application was filed in this Court. No action was taken by the applicant since the passing of the order dated 6-3-81 by the Additional Controller. The application is late by more than one year. The learned counsel for the applicant in support of his argument that Limitation Act does not apply relies upon Subhash Chander v. Mehmat Ullah I. L. R. 1973 (1) Delhi 181 (1 ). There is no dispute about the proposition that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before the Rent Control authorities. The second appeal however, is a proceeding before this Court and, therefore, the procedure applicable to second appeals in this Court would be applicable to the second appeals under the Rent Control Act Fee : Shiv Datt Sharma v. Prem Kumar Bhatia, 1969 R. C. R. 744 (2) and Collector, Varanasi v. Gauri Shan- ker Misra and others, AIR 1968 S. C. 384. (3) The Limitation Act will be applicable to the second appeal. According to Artice 120 of the Limitation Act, a period of 90 days is prescribed for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased appellant. The application is hopelessly bar-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document