The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the specified time limits for impleading legal heirs and the appellate authority's responsibility in deciding pending applications within a reasonable period.

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCA No.702 of 2006 in RCOP No.465 of 2005, this civil revision petition has been focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Synoptically and succinctly, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

(i) Originally, the RCOP for eviction was filed by the deceased landlord and eviction was

ordered; as against which, the tenant preferred appeal citing the deceased landlord as respondent. Pending appeal, the landlord died. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the tenant, strictly in accordance with law informed the Rent Controller about the death of the landlord.

(ii) However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein, who happens to be the wife of the deceased landlord, would submit that the appellate authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction on seeing the memo; as per Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 within 30 days, the legal heirs should have been got impleaded at the instance of the appellant therein; but it had not chosen to do so and the matter has been adjourned from time to time even though the appeal got abated and the said fact ought to have been recorded and the appeal should have been disposed of accordingly by the appellate authority; but without doing so, the appeal is kept pending. Hence, this revision. As such, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds as found set out in the revision would pray for dismissing the RCA itself.

4. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/appellant/tenant, in a bid to torpedo and make mincemeat of the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner would submit that by this time, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed to get the delay condoned in bringing the legal heirs of the deceased landlord on record and inasmuch as no Appellate authority is available, the matter is being adjourned.

5. The point for consideration is as to whether this court as a revisional court should record the factum of alleged abatement and dismiss the appeal itself?

6. I would like to fumigate my mind with Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1960 r/w Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent control) Rules, 1974 and it is extracted here under for ready reference:

Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1960

23. Appeal – (1) (a) The Government may, by general or special order notified in the [Tamil Nadu Government Gazette], confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of Appellate Authorities for the purpose of this Act, in such areas and in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.

(b) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction.

In computing the fifteen days aforesaid, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded.

(2) On such appeal being preferred, the Appellate Authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal.

(3) The Appellate Authority shall call for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal.

Explanation – The Appellate Authority may, while confirming the order of eviction passed by the Controller, grant an extension of time to the tenant for putting the landlord in possession of the building.

(4) The decision of the Appellate Authority, and subject to such decision, an order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in quest