K.M. Natarajan, J.@mdashThese matters have come up before this Bench on a reference by Nainar Sundaram, J., on account of conflicting views
expressed in the judgments of learned single Judges, namely: 1. M. M Ismail, J. (as he then was) in Chakrapani v. Gangammal (1978) 91. L.W.
649 : 1978 T.L.N.J. 238; 2. Maheswaran, J., in T.V. Rathnam v. P. Janakiraman (1985) 98. L.W. 515, Ratnam, J., in Sakthivel v. R.S. Govindan
(1988) 2 L.W. 52 and 3. KM. Natarajan, J., in K. Namashivayam v. C.S. Ramakrishna 1985. T.L.N.J. 279, CMP. SR. Nos. 10980 and 10981
of 1985 in C.R.P. No. 161 of 1983. on the important question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings to bring on
record legal representatives in revision before this Court under Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1974. For a
proper appreciation of the facts, it is necessary to quote the order of reference made before us which reads as follows:
The above (C.M.P.S.R. Nos. 101067 to 101069 of 1987) are proceedings taken in relation to the demise of the parties in the main revisions.
Proceedings have been taken to bring on recqrd the legal representatives and for ancillary reliefs as well as for condonation of delay in taking steps
beyond time. Objections are being taken by the opponents on the ground that as per Rule 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Rules, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, framed pursuant to the power conferred by Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the time limit for taking steps is 30 days either from the date of the demise of the
person concerned or from the date of having knowledge of such demise. The office of this Court is experiencing difficulties in processing the
present proceedings in view of pronouncements of this Court which have expressed conflicting views on the question of condonation of delay in
taking steps. There are three pronouncements, all of learned Single Judges of this Court, which take the view that Rule 25 of the Rules is
mandatory and there could not be entertaining of proceedings to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased party in a proceeding
under the Acts beyond the time prescribed in Rule 25 of the Rules (vide (1) Chakrapani v. Gangammal 1978 91 L.W. 649 : 1978. T.L.N.J. 238,
(2) Ratnam, T.V. v. Janakiraman (1985) 98 L.W. 515. (3) Sakthivel v. R.S. Govindan (1988) 2. L.W. 52.
2. There is a pronouncement of a learned single Judge of this Court taking a contrary view in K. Namashivayam v. C.S. Ramakrishna 1985
T.N.L.J. 279, C.M.P. S.R. Nos.10980 and 10981 of 1985 in C.R.P. No. 161 of 1983; order dated 16-10-1985. In this pronouncement, the
learned single Judge has opined that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked in Proceedings to bring on record the legal representatives in
revision before this Court, even though the proceedings were taken beyond the time prescribed by Rule 25 of the Rules.
3. The above are the pronouncements that are brought to my notice by the counsel appearing for the parties. In my view, it is better that a firm
resolution of and a ruling on this question arising out of Rule 25 of the Rules is given by a pronouncement of an appropriate Bench of this Court,
since this question is likely to arise very often before Courts. In this view, I direct the Office to place the papers in the above matters before My
Lord, the Officiating Chief Justice, for referring them to an appropriate Bench for decision.
4. C.R.P.S.R. No. 24937 of 1984 in C.R.P. No. 2941 of 1983, is stated to be a petition to bring on record the legal representatives of the
deceased original petitioner and it is stated to have been preferred on 28-2-1984 and it is further stated that the papers relating to the same are not
traceable and hence the fresh proceedings as per C.M.P.S.R. Nos. 68643 to 68645 of 1988 were filed subsequently. The counsel appearing for
the petitioners in this matter shall reconstruct the papers in C.M.P.S.R. No. 24937 of 1984 in C.R.P. No. 2941 of 1983 and place them for
reference before the appropriate Bench before which the matters may go. But the office of this Court need not postpone the placing of the papers
in the above matters other than the papers in C.M.P.S.R. No.24937 of 1984 in C.R.P. No. 2941 of 1983 before My Lord, the Officiating Chief
Justice, for referring the matters to an appropriate Bench.
For a proper appreciation of the question involved in these revisions, it is also worthwhile to extract the relevant provisions of the Rules and
Sections in the relevant Rules and Act. Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the
Rules, reads as follows:
25. Time limit for bringing the legal representatives on record in proceeding: Every application for making the legal representatives or
representatives of a deceased person, party to a proceeding under the Act, shall be preferred within one month from the date of the death of the
person concerned or the date of having knowledge of the death of the person concerned.
The relevant section which deals with proceedings by or against legal representatives is Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, which reads as follows:
27. Proceedings by or against legal representatives; (1) Any application made, appeal preferred, or proceeding taken, under this Act by or against
any person, may, in the event of his legal representatives:
(2) Where any application, appeal or other proceeding could have been made, preferred or taken under this Act by or against any person, such
application, appeal or other proceeding may, in the event of his death, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act 36 of 1963 reads as
Any appeal or any of the provisions of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant
or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for nor preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act reads as follows:
Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefore by
the First schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefore in that Schedule and for the purpose of
determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law the provisions contained in Sections 4,
9 to 18 and Section 23 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
It is to be noted that there is no specific exclusion of the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act anywhere in the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960, except with reference to the delay in filing revision before the High Court u/s 25. In the Proviso to
Section 25(2) of the Act it is stated that if the revision is filed beyond one month from the date of the order of the Appellate Authority, the High
Court may in its discretion allow further time not exceeding one month for filing any such application. In view of the said Proviso, where a
discretion has been given for extending time by another one month and provision is made for extending the time. Section 5 of the Limitation Act
cannot be invoked when the revision is filed in the High Court u/s 25, because the said application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is impliedly
excluded by prescribing a special period of extension of time for limitation. The scope of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the
proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and also the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act have
been dealt with by a Bench of this Court reported in Rathinasamy v. Komalavalli 95 L.W. 55, where, on a reference before the Bench on account
of conflicting view on the question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to appeals preferred u/s 23(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act, 13 of 1973, it was held:
For the purpose of Sections 3, 5 and 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, the Appellate Authority is a court and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act
is applicable to an appeal preferred by the petitioner herein before the Appellate Authority constituted u/s 23(1)(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960.
The Bench also found in the above decision
We have found in Section 23, under which the Appellate Authority has been constituted and in which a special period of limitation has also been
prescribed for the filing of an appeal that there is no specific exclusion of the application of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, just as there is a
specific exclusion in Section 25. Therefore, we are in agreement with the opinion expressed by the learned Judge. It follows, therefore that Section
29(2) of the Limitation Act governs special periods prescribed in the special and the local laws of which the Rent Control Act is one.
After considering the old Act and the new Act, it was observed:
The principle of liberal and benevolent construction of the Statute is also attracted here. The Indian Limitation Act is not applicable to specified
courts or tribunals alone. Moreover, the New Indian Limitation Act is alive to the changed circumstances and causes due to developed litigation
and advancement in the litigious field of life. That is evident from the change in the preamble to the new Limitation Act, 1963, which refers to not
only suits, but also other proceedings, whereas the old Act contained the words, ''for other purposes''. The term ''other proceedings'' will include
and embrace proceedings under the special and the local laws. If the intention of the Parliament was to restrict the Limitation Act only to the civil
courts, it would have certainly defined the ''court'' in the Limitation Act. The Parliament has brought out changes in the Preamble and also to
Sections 5, 12, 14, 29, etc.
It is clear from the above Bench decision that the Appellate Authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act
18 of 1960 is a Court and for the purposes of Sections 3, 5 and 29(2) of Indian Limitation Act, the Appellate Authority is a court and Section 5 of
the Limitation Act is applicable to an appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority constituted u/s 23(1)(b) of the Act Further, there is no
specific exclusion as in Sections 25 and 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to appeal before the Appellate Authority. In that decision the scope of
Sections 3, 5 and 29(2) has been dealt with reference to the old Limitation Act, 1908. In T.N. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Jagat Textiles, , while
considering the power of review of this Court in respect of the proceedings u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act
18 of 1960, it was held that the power of revision conferred u/s 25 of Act 18 of 1960 is on the High Court and while entertaining the revision it
exercises the power of a court created under the Constitution.
It is not a persona designate. When power is conferred on a Court, and no other special procedure is prescribed for disposal of matters under a
particular statute, as held in P.N Thakersey v. Pradyuman Singhji AIR 1970 SC. 1273 by such conferment of power, there is necessary
implication that the Code of Civil Procedure, would apply and in turn the power of review would be available to the High Court. It is clear from a
reading of Section 25 that the High Court exercises its power as one created under the Constitution and not under special statute. In Kannan T.R.
v. K. Govindan (1988) I.L.W. 73, rendered by one of us, namely K.M. Natarajan J. relying on the Division Bench decision in Rathinasamy v.
Komalavalli 95 L.W. 552 and other decisions, held that the Appellate Authority under the Act is a Court and the petition u/s 5 of the Limitation
Act is certainly maintainable, the appeal having been filed u/s 23(1). The scope of Sections 5 and 29 were also considered in the above quoted
decision. In Gedda Durga Malleswara Rao Vs. Ranga Panaiah and Bros., , it was held that ""The Rent Controller acting under the Rent Control
Act is a Court and (he provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller under the Act.
Hence an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay in filing an application to set aside an ex parte order of eviction of the Rent
Controller is maintainable"". In K. Namashivayam v. C.S. Ramakrishna 1985 T.L.N.J. 279 while considering the question regarding maintainability
of the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
relying on the Bench decision reported in Ratnaswami v. Komalavalli 95 L.W. 552 : 1981 T.L.N.J. 288 and also after considering the relevant
provisions of the new Limitation Act 1963, particularly Sections 5 and 29(2) and the fact that there is no specific exclusion as in the case of
revision u/s 25, it was held that the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse the delay in filing the application to implead the legal
representatives of the deceased respondent is strictly in order. It is not in dispute that there is no specific express exclusion of the period of
limitation to Rule 25.
5. Let us now consider the contra decisions referred to in the reference, in Chakrapani v. Gangammal (1978) 91 L.W. 649, Ismail, J., (as he then
was) considered the question whether Order 22, Rule 4, CPC as applicable or Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Rules, 1974 is applicable, for impleading the legal representatives in revision pending u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act 1960 before the High Court, and in that connection it was held that a revision petition filed against the order of the Appellate Authority u/s 25
of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 is certainly a proceeding and consequently Rule 25 applies to such proceeding. If Rule 25 applies to such a
proceeding, the period of limitation for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondent in the above quoted case is only 30 days,
and as such, the Civil Miscellaneous petition having been filed beyond 30 days is obviously barred by limitation. It may be stated that the
applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to revision u/s 25 of Act 18 of 1960 has not been considered in that decision and no decision was
rendered. It is not in dispute that as per Rule 25, the period of limitation of impleading the legal representative is only 30 days. The learned Judge
held that since the proceeding was instituted u/s 25 of the Act 18 of 1960, Rule 25 framed under Act 18 of 1960 is applicable and not Order 22,
Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned Judge in that case has taken a contrary view that Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is not applicable. As already stated, the present question was not at all the subject matter of the revision in that case. The next
decision referred to is one rendered by Maheswaran J., in Ratnam T.V. v. P. Janakiraman 98 L.W. 515. That was a case where the petition to
bring an record legal representatives of the deceased person was filed after a period of one month of the death of the petitioner. The learned Judge
relying on the decision on Chakrapani v. Gangammal (1978) 91 L.W. 649 (rendered by Ismail J. as he then was) already quoted above, held that
Rule 25 will apply to the above quoted case to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner as the period of limitation for
impleading as per Rule 25 is only 30 days and since the petitions were filed admittedly after 30 days they are barred by limitation. The other
reasoning given by the learned Judge (Maheswaran, J.,) is that Rule 25 is mandatory and there is no provision in the H.R.C. Act (House Rent
Control Act) to condone the delay and therefore the petitions to implead the legal representatives and to condone the delay are rejected. It is to be
noted that the learned Judge has not considered the applicability of Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The learned Judge only observed
that there is no provision in the H.R.C. Act to condone the delay that as per Rule 25, only 30 days time is provided and that therefore the petitions
are barred by limitation. As already observed by the Division Bench of this Court, in Rathnasamy v. Komalavalli 95 L.W. 552 : 1981 T.L.N.J.
288, in Section 29(2) of the new Act, there is no restriction as found in the old Act Section 29(2) (b). Thus Sections 4 to 24 are made applicable
to the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, whereas under the old Section 29(2), only
Sections 4,9 to 18 and 22 are made applicable to the special or local law. The Bench categorically held that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act
enables the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act to the Rent Control Act. Since there is no provision to condone the delay in the
Special Act, namely, Rent Control Act, certainly Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. The learned single Judge, Maheswaran, J. has not
considered the scope of the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly, Sections 5 and 29 as well as the case-laws on the subject, while
observing that Rule 25 is mandatory and there is no provision in the H.R.C. Act to condone the delay. Since the learned single Judge has not
considered the question of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the reasoning of the learned single Judge that since there is no provision
in the Act, the application is barred by limitation is, in our view, not sound reasoning. As observed already, Section 5 of the new Act, in view of
Section 29(2), is applicable to local laws, and in view of the fact that there is no specific exclusion of the provision of Limitation Act and no specific
period is prescribed under the Act to condone the delay, certainly Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. The mere fact that there is no
provision in special Act to condone the delay is not a ground to hold that Section 5 is not applicable.
6. The other decision referred to was rendered by Ratnam, J., in Sakthivel v. R.S. Govindan 1988, 2 L.W. 52 That was a case where the question
that arose for consideration was whether the application for impleading the legal representatives under Order 22, Rule 4, CPC was maintainable or
whether the application was to be filed only under Rule 25, of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules. It was held that the
application filed under Order 22, Rule 4, CPC was not maintainable and the same could not be entertained as it was beyond the time prescribed
under Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, It may be noted that applicability of Section 5 of
the Limitation Act to the application under Rule 25 has not at all been considered. The learned Judge further held in the above case that the filing of
an application to bring on record the legal representative of a deceased party is only to assist further prosecution of the proceedings and to regulate
the procedure and does not in any manner affect any right or liability. Further, the effect of an order either bringing or declining to bring on record a
legal representative in the proceeding under the Act is that the order passed is merely procedural assisting the continuation of the proceeding
without in any manner affecting rights of parties would not be appealable. The said decision cannot be taken as one where it is laid that Section 5
of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the application filed under Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act for bringing legal representatives on
record. As such, it cannot be said that a contrary view has been taken in the said decision.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in The Settlement Officer, Salem and
Others Vs. K.V. Krishna Iyer and Another, and submitted that it was held in that case that Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in
filing revision against the grant of patta u/s 11 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1948 was excluded,
relying on the decision in K.V. Krishna Iyer v. The President, Panchayat Board, Meyyanur, Salem District and Ors. 1974 I M.LJ. 218 rendered
by Ismail J., We have gone through the above decision. We find that a specific rule has been framed under the rule-making power provided in
Section 67 on the reference to Section 11 that the revision petition to the Settlement Officer or a revision to the Director should be filed within a
specified time. We find that specific provision excluding applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in respect of filing revision against the grant
of patta is incorporated, and in view of the specific proviso excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in respect of revision
against the order passed u/s 11 of the Act, it was that there was specific exclusion and only on that ground Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not
applicable to the said proceedings. As already said, there is no specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Rule 25, of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and as such, the said decision is not helpful to the respondents and on the other hand, it supports the view
that when there is no specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and there is no provision for condoning the delay under the said Rules,
certainly Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that since there is no specific exclusion of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, just as there is an exclusion in Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and in view of
the new provision, namely, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act which governs special period under special and local laws, of which the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is one, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is certainly applicable for impleading legal representative under Rule
25 to the proceedings in revision u/s 25 of the Act before this Court. We answer the reference accordingly. The office is directed to post the
revisions before learned single Judge who is dealing with civil revision petitions and the single Judge who is dealing with civil revision petitions for
deciding the applications under Rule 25 on merits.
