Applicability of the provisions of Limitation Act.

1. The first respondent is the landlord of certain properties. He leased out the same in favour of a firm of partnership of which the petitioner was one of the two partners and the other was one Muthu Pillai. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 90 of 1974 for eviction against both the petitioners herein and the said Muthu Pillai on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction finding wilful default in payment of the rent. The petitioner and the deceased Muthu Pillai filed C.M.A. 22 of 1975 against the order of eviction. The appeal was dismissed on 31st July, 1976. There is no evidence to show when C.R.P. 2197 of 1976 was filed against the order in the appeal. But the cause title showed the petitioner herein and the said Muthu Pillai as petitioners. During the pendency of the civil revision petition in this Court, Muthu Pillai died, on 3rd September, 1976. But his legal representatives were brought on record and the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed on 15th December, 1978 without noting that one of the petitioners Is already dead. The landlord, decree-holder filed E. P. No. 242 of 1979 on 6th April, 1979 against both the petitioner herein and the said Muthu Pillai for evicting the tenants. The petitioner filed E.A. No. 185 of 1979 for staying the execution proceedings. In this petition, the petitioners shown were the revision petitioner herein and the deceased Muthu Pillai thereby showing that the petitioner himself was either not aware of the death of Muthu Pillai or even if he was aware, he has deliberately suppressed the death. This application was ordered by the Rent Controller on 25th April, 1979 granting two months time for vacating. It appears on 24 th April, 1979 the petitioner herein filed another application in E.A. No. 215 of 1979 contending that the execution petition was not maintainable as Muthu Pillai had died and the eviction order itself was not executable. But even in this application, he did not produce the death extract. Later, he filed E.A. 216 of 1979 on 28th June, 1979, for receiving the death certificate as additional evidence in the execution proceedings. That death certificate produced by the petitioner herein showed that Muthu-Pillai, his partner died on 5th September, 1976 itself. The landlord first respondent herein filed a counter to E.A. No. 215 of 1979 contending that it was not necessary for him and he is not bound to bring on record the legal representatives of Muthu Pillai. When the death extract was produced by the petitioner, by order, dt. 30th June, 1979, the learned District Munsif held that it is seen from the extract produced by the tenant that Muthu Pillai died on 5th September, 1976 and that, therefore, the legal representatives will have to be brought on record. When this order was pronounced, the first respondent-landlord filed an application for bringing the legal representatives on record on 6th July, 1979. It is against that order, dt, 30th June, 1979, directing the landlord to implead the legal representatives of the deceased Muthu Pillai that this revision petition has been filed.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under R 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974, an application for bringing on record the legal representatives of a deceased person shall be filed within one month from the date of the death of the person concerned or the date of having knowledge of the death of person concerned and that the Rent Controller has no power to excuse the delay in filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record. He also contended that R. 25 of the Rules is applicable to a case where a party to the Rent Control proceedings dying when the petition under the Act was pending disposal before the Rent Controller as also to a case where it has reached the stage of execution. If the death had occurred during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Con