Limitation for framing L.R. on record not applicable to execution proceedings.

The petitioner is the tenant against whom an order of eviction was passed in R.C.O.P.No.2344 of 1982 under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The tenant took the matter up to the Supreme Court, but was unsuccessful throughout. The landlady passed away on 16th December, 1983. The Special Leave Petition filed by the tenant against the dismissal of the civil revision petition, namely C.R.P.No.4074/83, was after the death of the landlady and in that proceeding before the Supreme Court, the respondent herein was shown as the respondent. The respondent filed E.P.No.667/84 and M.P.No.493/84 to enforce the said order of eviction. In M.P.No.493/84 he wanted that he should be impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased landlady Kannammal. The petitioner-tenant resisted that application on the ground that the respondent is not the legal representative, nor is he the legal heir of the deceased Kannammal and that the petition not having been filed within 30 days from the date of the death of the landlady, it is liable to be dismissed as barred by time. The Rent Controller ordered the said petition. The petitioners appeal, R.C.A.No.784/85 was also dismissed. Hence the present revision.

2. Let me first of all advert to the argument based on rule 25 of the rules framed under the Act. The said rule runs as follows:

"25. Time-limit for bringing the legal representatives on record in proceedings: Every application for making the legal representative or representatives of a deceased person, party to a proceeding under the Act shall be preferred within one month from the date of having knowledge of the death of the person concerned."

In view of the decision in Ramanujam Naidu v. Panchanatha Mudaliar, (1980)1 M.L.J.232, the petitioners contention that the petition, M.P.No.493 of 1984 is time-barred has to be rejected. It is enough to quote the relevant passage in paragraph 5 of the said decision below:

"Rule 25 in terms is not applicable to a death occurring after the decree in execution proceedings as it in terms is applicable only to proceedings pending before the Rent Controller. Though the Rent Controller is now executing the decree, he is not executing an order of the Rent Controller but an order which shall be deemed to be an order of the Civil Court which he is executing. In such a proceeding, rule 25 is not applicable. The ratio of the decision in Subramania Pillai. v. Rajakanni Nadar, (1971)1 M.L.J.223= (1971) R.C.J.459= 83 L.W.758= A.I.R.197I Mad.310, therefore still holds good and is applicable. It may also be mentioned that in executing the order of eviction as if it were an order of the Civil Court, the Controller shall also have all the powers of the Civil Court, In proceedings in execution in civil courts, the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act is (sic) applicable and, therefore, an application for excusing delay in filing the petition for bringing on record the legal representative, if there is any delay, could also be maintained."

Secondly, in C.R.P.No.4774/83 the petitioner was granted nine months time since 30th September, 1983, that is, the petitioner had time till 30th June, 1984 to vacate. The present petition M.P.No.493/84 was presented on 4th July, 1984. It cannot be disputed that the landlady or her legal representative could not have levied execution til! 30th June, 1984. In other words, the execution could be levied only on and after 1st July, 1984. The order of eviction, when it is put in execution, becomes a decree of civil court under section 18 of the Act. According to section 18, "every order made 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, "a civil court" (emphasis supplied by me). A decree of a civil court can be executed till it is barred by time. This will indisputably indicate that an app