Impleading L.Rs of deceased tenant at the execution stage if permissible

This revision petition is preferred under Art.227 of the Constitution of lndia, against an order of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Coimbatore, in E.P.No.494 of 1982 in E.A.No.2427 of 1983, dated 30.4.1987.

2. The petitioner in this civil revision petition was the fourth respondent in E.A.No.2427 of 1983. The facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are the following: "The second respondent herein preferred R.C.O.P.No.400 of 1966 against one Sulaiman, Raman Nair and Aziz Khan for evicting them from the suit premises. An order of eviction against those three tenants were passed on 1. 1967. Against that order of eviction, an appeal was filed in R.C.A.No.32of 1967 which was ultimately dismissed on 21. 1969. Thereafter, the tenants preferred C.R.P.No.274 of 1969 on the file of this court which was also ultimately dismissed on 24. 1970. It appears that Azizkhan viz., the third tenant died on 20.9.1972. Without knowing the death of the said Aziz Khan, E.P.No.446 of 1975 was filed on 16. 1974. On 111. 1976, the legal representatives of the deceased Aziz Khan including the petitioner herein filed a Memo before the Rent Controller bringing to the notice of the Court about the death of Aziz Khan. Immediately, the second respondent herein filed E.A.No.160 of 1977 on 22. 1977 to bring on record the petitioner herein and two others as legal representatives of the deceased Aziz Khan. That application was opposed by the legal representatives of the deceased Aziz Khan. That application was opposed by the legal representatives on the ground that the landlord was aware of the death of Aziz Khan long earlier and the application to bring legal representatives on record filed after a period of 30 days from the date of the knowledge of the death of Aziz Khan cannot be entertained as per Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974. However, the Rent Controller overruled that objection and allowed the petition. Against that order of the learned Rent Controller bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased Aziz Khan, the petitioner herein and two others preferred W.P.No.2620 of 1977. That writ petition came up before Ratnavel Pandian, J., as he then was. Before the Learned Judge, it was contended on behalf of the legal representatives inter alia that the landlord could proceed against the petitioners herein, if he is so advised, by filing an independent application for execution as provided under the Act. The learned Judge in his elaborate Judgment which is reported in Ghouse Khan v. Rent Controller, Coimbatore, (1981)2

M.L.J. 388, has held that the order of the Rent Controller cannot be sustained and consequently allowed the Writ Petition with an observation which reads as follows:

“It is unnecessary to mention that it is always open to the second respondent-andlord to take separate proceedings against the writ petitioners if he is so advised, under the provisions of the Act.”

In the light of the disposal of the Writ Petition in the above manner, the second respondent herein filed another execution petition on 11. 1980, viz., E.P.No.494 of 1982. In this execution petition, he has shown the original two tenants and the legal representatives of the deceased third tenant, viz., Aziz Khan which include the petitioner herein as well. By way of abundant caution, the second respondent herein also filed E.A.No.2427 of 1983 with a prayer to condone the delay, if any, in bringing the legal representatives on record. The Legal Representatives of the deceased Aziz Khan opposed the application contending that in view of the order in W.P.No.2620 of 1977, the landlord cannot file fresh execution petition, but has to file fresh R.C.O.P.

3. The learned Rent Controller overruled that objection and impleaded the petitioner and two others as legal representatives of the deceased Aziz Khan purporting to condone the delay in bringing the legal representatives on record.

4. Aggrieved by the