1. These two revisions are filed by the tenant, one against the order of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. 412 of 1982 fixing the fair rent at Rs. 691 per month and another against an order dismissing M.P. 744 of 1982. for adducing additional evidence. Pending these revisions which were filed in the year 1982. and admitted by this Court, the revision petitioner, Mrs. T.V. Ratnam, died. She died on 17th October, 1984. The brother of the deceased revision petitioner in his affidavit would say that the legal representatives of the deceased revision petitioner and he came to know only on 19th December, 1984 that the revisions are pending in High Court and that they have to bring on record the legal representatives. In the circumstances, they pray for condoning the delay in bringing the legal representatives on record and also to set aside the abatement.

2. The Office, in its Note, says that there is no provision in the Rent Control Act, to condone the delay in bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased party.

3. Both the revisions, I must point out, are filed under S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1903. The Rent Control Act is a self-contained Act. In respect of bringing on record the legal representatives there is an express provision under R. 25 of the Tamil Nidu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974. R. 25 runs thus

Every application for making the legal representative or representatives of the 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.

In this case, the petitioner died on 17th October, 1984. The petitions to bring on record the legal representatives were filed on 19th December, 1984 and the petitions to set aside the abatement were filed on 23rd January, 1985, and the petitions to condone the delay in filing the petitions to bring on record the legal representatives were also filed on 23rd January, 1985. R. 25 very clearly says that the petition to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased person shall be preferred within one month from the date of the death of the person or the date of having knowledge of the death of the person concerned. The affidavits filed in support of the petitions to bring on record the legal representatives were sworn to by the brother of the deceased. It cannot be said that the brother was not aware of the death of his sister, nor does he anywhere say in his affidavits that he was not aware of the death of the petitioner, his sister. Therefore, the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the revision petitioner should have been filed within one month from the date of death of the petitioner. I have already referred to the fact that the revision petitions are filed under S. 25 of the, and therefore, it is a proceeding under the. R. 25 will therefore apply to the present case for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased petitioner. In Chakrapani v. Gangammal 1 Ismail, J. as he then was, took the view that R. 25 would apply to a revision petition filed against the order of the Appellate Authority under S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, as it is a proceeding under the and that the period of limitation for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased would be only thirty days. I am in perfect accord with this observation of the learned Judge. As these petitions were filed admittedly after thirty days of the death of the revision petitioner, the petitions are barred by limitation. The office note is answered accordingly.

4. C.M.P. SR. R. No. 124375 of 1984 and 124377 of 1984, to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner are rejected. R. 25 is mandatory and there is no provision in the H.R C. Act to condone the delay, and, therefore C.M.P.S.R. Nos. 4657 and 4658 of 1985 to condone the delay are also rejected. Consequently, the other petitions, C.M.P.S.R. 6088 of 1985 and 12214 of 1985 for setting aside the abatement, are also rejected.