The petitioner tenant companytended in the execution Court that the impleadment application thus filed in the main execution petition was time barred as it was filed beyond as it was filed beyond the period of one month specified in Rule 25 of the Rules, Rule 25 prescribes the time limit for bringing the legal representatives on record in proceedings under the Act.
In the said pending execution petition, the respondents, who are the decree holders legal representatives filed an interlocutory application for their impleadment as the legal representatives of the decree holder, on 26.4.1994.
By an order dated 19.9.1997, the High Court allowed the revision on the ground that under Section 18 of the Act, the Rent Controller has to execute the eviction order, as if such order is an order of a Civil Court and hence there was numberquestion of limitation.
The decree holder filed an execution petition within time for filing an execution petition but later he died on 27.2.1993.
Thereafter, the tenant filed a review application companytending that the High Court, while allowing the revision, had number taken numbere of Hydro Chains P Ltd. Vs.
The SLP is preferred by the tenant against the order of the High Court of Madras in CRP 2272 of 1997 dated 19.9.1997 and the order dismissing the Review application No.
The eviction proceedings under the Act were started in 1982 by the respondents father in RCOP 17/1982.
Eviction was ordered and the said order was companyfirmed by the appellate authority.
The applicants in that IA filed CRP No.
104 of 1997 dated 12.11.1997.
The matter arises in execution proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 hereinafter called the Act .
Accepting the said objection, the impleadment application was dismissed.
2272/1997 in the High Court.
