After death of landlord impleading of legal representatives is permissible.

1. The respondent in the Rent Control Original Petition No.8 of 1990 is the petitioner herein and he has come forward to institute the above Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decretal Order dated 211. 1999 made in I.A.No.85 of 1996 in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1990 passed by the Rent Controller and the I Additional District Munsif, Salem.

2. The original petitioner in the R.C.O.P. is the landlady viz., R. Amsavani Ammal who is reportedly dead. The second and third respondents herein namely, Minor Santhosh and V.Shiyamala Rani have come to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner R.Amsavani Ammal as per the order dated 211. 1999 made in I.A.No.85 of 1996 by the court below which is under challenge before this Court.

3. The contentions of the petitioner herein is that Minor Santhosh and V. Shiyamala Rani should not have been impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased R. Amsavani Ammal at all, since according to the revision petitioner, the rights of the deceased as claimed by her in the RCOP claiming to vacate the tenant for her own occupation being a personal right of hers has become non est in law. The lower court, refusing to accept the claim of the tenant, has allowed the petition of the legal representatives as a result of which the said order is being testified by the revision petitioner/tenant in the above revision.

4. Today, when the above matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners is present and since neither the respondents nor their counsel are present, this Court is left with no option but to decide the above matter in consideration of the facts and circumstances as pleaded by parties and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner alone.

5. On the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner, two Judgments are cited. The first one is reported in Salima Bl v. Malika Begum, 1972 (2) MLJ 21 (SN) and the second one in Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Rahiman Khan and others, 1947 (2) MLJ 419.

6. Prior toconsidering the above judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 and it is relevant to extract the same here since it is only under this provision of law the petition had been filed before the court below.

"(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 made, preferred or taken, under this Act or by against any person, such application, appeal or other proceeding may, in the event of his death, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives."

7. Section27 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would indicate that any application, appeal or proceeding in the event of the death of the party may be continued by his legal representatives. It is under this Section only the legal representatives of the deceased have filed the petition concerned seeking the impugned order to implead them as parties to continue the proceeding. While the Section is positive in its nature and approach providing for the legal representatives to be brought on record, normally. Courts decide to permit the legal representatives to continue the litigation on the death of the original landlord. In fact, the only point for determination, at this juncture, is whether in the case in hand, on the death of the original petitioner/land lady, the cause of action survives or not so as to allow the legal representatives of the deceased landlady to carry on with the proceedings. Section 27 provides for impleading the legal representatives in general.

8. So far as the above Judgments are concerned, in the first Judgment wherein only a short note ha