Decidendi—Rent Controller is not a Court.

This writ petition is to quash the order of the Rent Controller (first respondent) in E. A. No. 160 of 1977 in E. P. No, 446 of 1975 in R. C. O. P. No. 400 of 1966, dated 26th July, 1977, impleading respondents 4 to 6 therein (writ petitioners herein) as the legal representatives of deceased Aziz Khan, who was a tenant along with respondents 3 and 4 herein in respect of the premises in question.

2. The facts of the case which led to this writ petition as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, can be briefly stated thus: The second respondent herein as the landlord filed R. C. O. P. No. 400 of 1966 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Coimbatore, against the tenants viz., respondents 3 and 4 herein and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein, and obtained an order of eviction against them. It is not in controversy that this order of eviction was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. Aziz Khan died on 20th September, 1972 leaving the petitioners herein as his legal representatives. Thereafter the second respondent on 12th June, 1974 filed E. P. No. 446 of 1975 before the Rent Controller Coimbatore, under Order 21 , rule 35, Civil Procedure Code, for delivery of possession of the property. The writ petitioners filed a memo, before the Rent Controller on 18th November, 1976 bringing to the notice of the Court the death of Aziz Khan. The second respondent, the landlord, thereafter filed E. A. No. 160 of 1977 on 26th February, 1977 before the Court seeking to bring on record he petitioners herein as the legal representatives of the deceased Azia Khan. This application was opposed by the proposed legal representatives, viz., respondents 4 to 6 therein, the writ petitioners herein, mainly on the ground that the landlord, though admittedly aware of the death of Aziz Khan admittedly 18th November, 1976 when they filed the memo., in Court, has taken out this application only on 26th February, 1977, viz., after the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of his acquiring the knowledge of the death of Aziz Khan, thereby contravening rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Rules). The learned Rent Controller rejected the contention and allowed the execution application holding that

“it is obvious that since section 18 of the Act empowers the Controller to execute the order passed in R. C. O. P. just as a civil Court will execute a decree, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code will be applicable to the execution proceedings in R. C. O. P. also” and that “an application for bringing a legal representative as a party in a civil Court can be filed within three months of the date of the knowledge of the person concerned and so it is obvious that even in an execution proceeding in a Rent Control proceeding, a petition for bringing the legal representatives on record can be filed within three months from the date of the knowledge of the death of the person concerned.”

In support of this view he has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Subramania Pillai v. Rajakkani Nadar and another1. Accordingly, he impleaded the petitioners as parties to the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the legal representatives of the deceased tenant have directed this petition seeking a writ of certiorari.

3. The order of the Rent Controller has been challenged mainly on the ground that the Controller ought not to have entertained the application taken out by the second respondent-landlord for impleading the writ petitioners as the legal representatives of the deceased tenant after the expiry of a period of one month from the date of knowledge of the death of the tenant as specifically provided in rule 25 of the Rent Control Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the decision in Subramania Pillai v. Rajakkani Nadar1. which related to execution