L.Rs. of the deceased may pursue the proceedings.

T. Sathiadev, J.

1. In all these revision petitions, the common question involved is whether in a petition filed under Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, if the landlady dies pending its disposal it open to her legal representatives to bring themselves on record for continuing the proceedings, when the undertaking to be given under Section 14(2) is claimed to be personal in nature?

2. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority having held that the legal representatives could continue the proceedings, these Revision Petitions have been preferred by the respective tenants under late Syed Beevi, it is not in dispute that she was the landlady as defined under Section 2(6) of the Act in respect of the respective premises. She filed eviction petition under Section 14(i)(b) and when they were pending disposal, she died on 2.7.1986. Equally, it not in dispute that the second respondent is her husband and respondents 3 to 5 are their children. A claim is put forth by tenants that second respondent is in Sri Lanka and, therefore, he could not have any rights but this aspect cannot be decided in these petitions. It is admitted that except these four persons, their are no other legal heirs to late Syed Beevi. Yet their, impleadment is opposed mainly on the sole plea, that, when an undertaking in Section 14(2) will have to be given and when the said undertaking in Section 14(2) will have to be given and when the said undertaking could be confined only to Syed Beevi, the 'dictims actio personalis mortium cum persona' will apply and, therefore, on her death, the petitions filed by her would come to an end and that if her legal heirs want to avail themselves of the benefits under Section 14(1)(b) they will have to file fresh petition in their own right as landlord, as defined in Section 2(6).

3. Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for petitioners, in his lengthy submissions, would go to the extent of claiming that the Rent Controller a court, and therefore, the provisions of Section 4, Civil Procedure Code, would apply, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary found in the Act or the Rules. Making a beginning from this point, he had proceeded further to rely upon Legal Representatives Act, Succession Act, Guardians and Wards Act, Civil Procedure Code, etc. In more than one decision it has been held that the Rent Controller is not a civil court, and this was pointed out in Lakshmiammal v. Elumalai Chettiar. When Rules have been framed under the Act, as to what procedure, the learned Rent Controller will have to follow, it cannot be held that the provision of the Civil Procedure Code will apply. Equally it cannot be held that without filing an application for appointment of a guardian and without an order being passed to bring on record the legal representatives following the prescribed procedure in Civil Procedure Code, the Rent Controller cannot hear a petition of this nature by relying upon Section 27(1) of the Act. Hence, this contention is without any substance. As to what could be done in a proceeding initiated under the Act when the petitioner dies, is specifically provided under Section 27(1) of the Act as follows:

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.

In the earlier enactment, there was no provision made to this effect. It shows the legislative intention that in respect of each and every proceeding that could be initiated under the Act, a legal representative could be brought on record to continue the petitions. There is nothing to infer in the said section that it could be confined only to all sorts of petitions, except a petition filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. In the absence of any such distinction existing, it has to be held that that Section 7(1) will also apply to the petition filed under Section 14(1)(b).

4. The next contention is t