ORDER :

R. Subramanian, J.

1. These applications have been filed by the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition seeking condonation of delay of 5007 days in bringing on record the respondents 2 to 4 herein as the legal heirs of the deceased sole respondent; to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the sole respondent; and to bring on record the respondents 2 to 4 herein as the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent and rank them as respondents 2 to 4 in the Civil Revision Petition.

2. The original proceeding arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The claim of the landlord for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act was negatived by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. Pending the revision, the tenant/sole respondent in the revision petition died on 12.08.2004. Though the sons of the tenant had written to the petitioner/landlord on 20.08.2004 informing him about the death of their father and their continuing as tenants, no steps were taken by the petitioner to bring on record the legal representatives within the time allowed by law. However, it is seen that the Civil Revision Petition was heard on merits and it came to be allowed by this Court on 22.02.2007, oblivious of the death of the respondent/tenant.

3. It is also seen from the order, dated 22.02.2007, that the respondent/tenant was not represented by a Counsel before this Court. Thereafter, when execution proceedings were levied and an order of delivery was passed in the said execution proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent/tenant had died even before the Civil Revision Petition was allowed by this Court. The legal effect was that the order of this Court, dated 22.02.2007 became a nullity. It is at this juncture, the petitioner has come up with these applications seeking condonation of delay and to bring on regard the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent.

4. The reason set out for the delay is that the petitioner/landlord had, in fact, sought for eviction of five tenants, who were occupying a row of shops. The Rent Control Original proceedings commenced in the year 1982 and the appeals filed by the landlord came to be disposed of in the year 1994. The Civil Revision Petitions, that were filed before the Principal Seat of this Court in the year 1996, were transferred to this Bench during the year 2004.

5. Conceding the claim of the respondents that they informed the death of the tenant even during the year 2004, the landlord would seek to explain his failure to take steps within the time allowed under the law, stating that the sons of tenant alone used to send the rents and the information regarding the death of the tenant given in one of the letters addressed to him by the sons of the tenant was, in fact, overlooked by him. He would also further state that he had taken possession of all the other shops situated in the same building and they have been demolished. Only the shop, that is in occupation of the respondents herein, remains as on date.

6. This Court had appointed a Commissioner pending the revision and the said Commissioner had also filed a report. Mr. Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek to rely upon the Commissioner's report to demonstrate that the building is in very dilapidated condition and therefore, it requires immediate demolition.

7. This claim of the landlord is stoutly opposed by the legal heirs of the tenant. Pointing out that, immediately after the death of the tenant, the legal heirs had, by their letter, dated 20.08.2004, informed the landlord about the death of their father and their continuing to occupy the premises as tenants, the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that there is no proper explanation for the delay. The petitioner/landlord, according to the legal representatives, namely, respondents 2 to 4, had been phenomenally negligent