( 1 ) THE applicant of C. A. Nos. 5143 and 5144 of 1992 is the original petitioner in C. R. A. No. 1014 of 1988. The said revision application was admitted by the learned single Judge of this Court on 29/09/1988. It appears that Vidyaben Rambhai Patel instituted Rent Suit No. 1078 of 1986 against the present applicant for his eviction from the suit premises consisting of three rooms, kitchen, gallery on the first floor. The trial Court by its judgment and decree, dated 16/08/1982 passed decree for eviction in favour of land-lady and against the present applicant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the present applicant preferred Reg. Civil Appeal no. 282 of 1982 in the District Court at Baroda which dismissed the appeal by its judgment and decree, dated 30/07/1988. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the District Court the aforesaid Civil Revision Application is filed in this Court which is admitted and is pending for final hearing.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the said revision application the land-lady- vidyaben Rambhai Patel has expired on 5/02/1991. One Khevinaben rambhai Patel claims to be the heir and legal representative of aforesaid vidyaben Rambhai Patel under a will executed by Vidyaben.

( 3 ) SAID Khevinaben R. Patel had filed Misc. C. A. No. 1575 of 1992, inter alia, praying that since the heirs and legal representatives of deceased vidyaben are not brought on record within the prescribed period of limitation the C. R. A. No. 1014 of 1988 has abated and that writ to that effect should be issued to the trial Court as well as to the District Court.

( 4 ) C. A. No. 5143 of 1992 is filed by the original petitioner in C. R. A. (tenant) for condoning delay caused in bringing heirs and legal representatives of deceased -Vidyaben R. Patel on record and for impleading Khevinaben r. Patel as heirs and legal representative of Vidyaben R. Patel. In the application for condonation of delay it is, inter alia, averred by the applicant-original petitioner that he had no knowledge about the death of vidyaben R. Patel. He has stated that on or about 19/09/1992 when khevinaben R. Patel filed M. C. A. No. 1575 of 1992 pointing out that vidyaben R. Patel has expired on or about 5/02/1991 that he came to know about the death of Vidyaben R. Patel. Immediately, on his coming to know about the death of Vidyaben R. Patel the application to condone delay being C. A. No. 5143 of 1991 is filed. It is his case that from the date of knowledge of death of Vidyaben R. Patel the application is filed within time, but from the date of death of Vidyaben R. Patel it is filed beyond prescribed period of limitation and delay is caused because he never knew about the death of Vidyaben R. Patel. He, therefore, prayed for condonation of delay.

( 5 ) PROPOSED heir of Vidyaben R. Patel has, by filing affidavit-in-reply, resisted the prayer for condonation of delay. It is her case that the present applicant knew about the death of Vidyaben R. Patel. She has further stated that Vidyaben R. Patel expired on one of the blocks of Binni Niwas, i. e. , the same building in which the applicant is residing. She has further stated that applicant had also attended the cremation ceremony and Besna ceremony and even in Newspaper, dated 10/02/1991 advertisement was issued about the death of Vidyaben. She has, therefore, contended that no cause is made out by the applicant for condonation of delay.

( 6 ) AS regards C. A. No. 5144 of 1992 it is an application to implead khevinaben R. Patel as heir and legal representative of deceased-Vidyaben r. Patel in the proceeding and incidentaly it is an application for setting aside the abatement, if there is any. It shall have to be stated that no affidavitin- reply is filed but oral submissions are made by the learned Counsel appearing for proposed heir-Khavinaben R. Patel.

( 7 ) MR. Mohit S. Shah, learned Counsel for proposed heir who has filed Misc. C. A. No. 1575 of 1992, has strenuously urged befo