Execution of the order of eviction against L.R.of deceased tenant.

T. Sathiadev, J.

1. Petitioners herein are the legal heirs of late Abdullah Haji, who died on 17.11.1982. Along with one K. Abdullah, he had taken on lease a building belonging to second respondent herein, for conducting a hotel named "HOTEL NEW PARIS". Second respondent filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of Act 18 of 1960 against them in R.C.O.P. No. 295/ 83 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore, and secured an order of eviction. After an appeal was preferred by tenants, second respondent filed C.R.P. No. 2008 of 1975 in this Court against the appellate order, wherein they pleaded for one a half years time to be granted to vacate the property, and after recording the memo of compromise, an order was passed on 15.9.1978, granting time till 15.3.1980 to deliver vacant possession of the property. In spite of such undertaking on 7.3.1980 late Abdullah Haji filed O.S. No. 477 of 1980, asking for a declaration that the order of eviction dated 23.9.1974 passed in R.CO.P. No. 295 of 1973, as confirmed, was invalid, as it was brought about by fraud, and hence, he was entitled to the grant of injunction. In the meanwhile, second respondent had filed an execution petition, and during its pendency, Abdullah Haji died on 17.11.1982, leaving behind the petitioners herein, as his lawful heirs. Executing court having refused to bring them on record in view of the definition of the term "tenant" under Section 2(8) of the Act, this revision petition is preferred.

2. The relevant portion of Section 2(8) is as follows:

(ii) in the case of a non-residential building, had been in continuous association with the tenant for the purpose of carrying on the business of the tenant upto the death of the tenant and continues to carry on such business thereafter, and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart-stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a municipal council or a panchayat union council or the Municipal Corporation of Madras or the Municipal Corporation of Madurai.

The following sections are also relevant.

Section 18: (1) Every order made under Sections 10, l4,15, 16, and 17 and every order passed on appeal under Section 23 or on revision under Section 25 shall be executed by the Controller, as if, such order is an order of a civil court and for this purpose, the Controller shall have all the powers of a civil Court.

(2) An order passed in execution under Sub-section (1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision.

Section 25:

(1) The High court may, on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the appellate authority, call for and examine the record of the appellate authority, to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if in any case, it appears to the High Court that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly.

(2) Every application to the High Court for the exercise of its power under Sub-section (1) shall be preferred within one month from the date on which the order or proceeding to which the application relates is communicated to the applicant:

Provided that the High Court may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding one month for the filing of any such application, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient, cause for not preferring the application within the time specified in this sub-section.

Section 27:

(1) Any application made, appeal preferred, or proceeding taken, under this Act by or against any person, may, in the event of his death, be continued by or against his legal representatives.

2. Where any application, appeal or other proceeding could have been mad