Applicability of the provisions of Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Act.

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. These matters have come up before this Bench on a reference by Nainar Sundaram, J., on account of conflicting views expressed in the judgments of learned single Judges, namely: 1. M. M Ismail, J. (as he then was) in Chakrapani v. Gangammal (1978) 91. L.W. 649 : 1978 T.L.N.J. 238; 2. Maheswaran, J., in T.V. Rathnam v. P. Janakiraman (1985) 98. L.W. 515, Ratnam, J., in Sakthivel v. R.S. Govindan (1988) 2 L.W. 52 and 3. KM. Natarajan, J., in K. Namashivayam v. C.S. Ramakrishna 1985. T.L.N.J. 279, CMP. SR. Nos. 10980 and 10981 of 1985 in C.R.P. No. 161 of 1983. on the important question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings to bring on record legal representatives in revision before this Court under Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1974. For a proper appreciation of the facts, it is necessary to quote the order of reference made before us which reads as follows:

The above (C.M.P.S.R. Nos. 101067 to 101069 of 1987) are proceedings taken in relation to the demise of the parties in the main revisions. Proceedings have been taken to bring on recqrd the legal representatives and for ancillary reliefs as well as for condonation of delay in taking steps beyond time. Objections are being taken by the opponents on the ground that as per Rule 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, framed pursuant to the power conferred by Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the time limit for taking steps is 30 days either from the date of the demise of the person concerned or from the date of having knowledge of such demise. The office of this Court is experiencing difficulties in processing the present proceedings in view of pronouncements of this Court which have expressed conflicting views on the question of condonation of delay in taking steps. There are three pronouncements, all of learned Single Judges of this Court, which take the view that Rule 25 of the Rules is mandatory and there could not be entertaining of proceedings to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased party in a proceeding under the Acts beyond the time prescribed in Rule 25 of the Rules (vide (1) Chakrapani v. Gangammal 1978 91 L.W. 649 : 1978. T.L.N.J. 238, (2) Ratnam, T.V. v. Janakiraman (1985) 98 L.W. 515. (3) Sakthivel v. R.S. Govindan (1988) 2. L.W. 52.

2. There is a pronouncement of a learned single Judge of this Court taking a contrary view in K. Namashivayam v. C.S. Ramakrishna 1985 T.N.L.J. 279, C.M.P. S.R. Nos.10980 and 10981 of 1985 in C.R.P. No. 161 of 1983; order dated 16-10-1985. In this pronouncement, the learned single Judge has opined that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked in Proceedings to bring on record the legal representatives in revision before this Court, even though the proceedings were taken beyond the time prescribed by Rule 25 of the Rules.

3. The above are the pronouncements that are brought to my notice by the counsel appearing for the parties. In my view, it is better that a firm resolution of and a ruling on this question arising out of Rule 25 of the Rules is given by a pronouncement of an appropriate Bench of this Court, since this question is likely to arise very often before Courts. In this view, I direct the Office to place the papers in the above matters before My Lord, the Officiating Chief Justice, for referring them to an appropriate Bench for decision.

4. C.R.P.S.R. No. 24937 of 1984 in C.R.P. No. 2941 of 1983, is stated to be a petition to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased original petitioner and it is stated to have been preferred on 28-2-1984 and it is further stated that the papers relating to the same are not traceable and hence the fresh proceedings as per C.M.P.S.R. Nos. 68643 to 68645 of 1988 were filed subsequently. The counsel appearing for the peti