Judgment :- 1. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1965 can condone the delay in filing an application, for impleading and set aside the abatement of the appeal. On an application to set aside filed after sixty days of the date of abatement even if an application to condone the delay was also filed along with the application to set aside the abatement. The widow of the respondent-tenant in a petition for eviction is the petitioner in this Civil Revision. The challenge is against the order of the District Judge, Kottayam dismissing the petitioner's revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Kottayam ordering eviction and reversing the order of the Rent Control Court, Kottayam dismissing the petition for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1965, for short the Act. The decisions of the Appellate Authority allowing the application for impleading, filed after the time insisted by the Rules, and setting aside the abatement of the appeal for not bringing on record the legal representative in time were also challenged before the learned District Judge. 2. The petition for eviction was filed under S.11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed that petition. The respondent-landlord took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Kottayam. Pending the appeal, the tenant died on 27-11-1979. The appeal stood posted to 4-12-1979. On that date, the appellant's counsel reported that the respondent was dead and the case was posted to 18-1-1980 for impleading. On 19-12-1979 the application for impleading was filed. The Appellate Authority allowed that application without ordering notice. On 8-4-1980 the revision petitioner filed an application before the Appellate Authority pointing out that the appeal stood abated as the legal representative was not impleaded within the 15 days time allowed by the Rules. Then on 8-8-1980 the respondent filed an application to set aside the abatement. An application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the abatement was also filed. The Appellate Authority disposed of the applications filed by the petitioner and the respondent along with the appeal. Then on 8-8-1980 the respondent filed an application to set aside the abatement. An application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the abatement was also filed. The Appellate Authority disposed of the applications filed by the petitioner and the respondent along with the appeal. (The petitioner's case is that she wanted her application for deciding whether the appeal was abated, to be heard and disposed of preliminarily.) The Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's contentions and allowed the appeal ordering eviction as prayed for. As the petitioner's revision before the District Judge also met with the same fate, the petitioner has approached this Court with this Civil Revision. 3. Admittedly, the application for impleading was made after the 15 days time allowed as per the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased party. So, on the expiry of 15 days from the date of death of the deceased respondent-tenant, the appeal filed against the order of the Rent Control Court and pending before the Appellate Authority stood abated for not impleading the legal representatives in time Then the further question is whether the Appellate Authority can condone the delay in filing the application for impleading and allow the application for setting aside the abatement filed by the appellant-landlord. Admittedly, 0.22 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to proceedings under the Act. The condonation of delay in filing the applications for impleading and setting aside the abatement is governed by 0.22 R.4(5), CPC., which reads: 4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant. (1) ... ...... (2) ... ....... (3) ... ....... (4) ... ...... (5) Where (a) the plaintiff was ignorant of the death of a defendant, and could not, for that reason, make an application for the substitution of the legal representative of the defendant under this rule within the period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963, and the suit has, in consequence, abated, and (b) the plaintiff applies after the expiry of the period specified therefor in the Limitation Act, 1963, for setting aside the abatement and also for the admission of that application under S.5 of that Act on the ground that he had. by reason of such ignorance, sufficient cause for not making the application within the period specified in the said Act, the Court shall in considering the application under the said S. S, have due regard to the fact of such ignorance, if proved." It is clear from the above provision that in the case of applications for impleading not filed within the time insisted for the same, the delay can be condoned only under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Only if the delay in filing the application for impleading is condoned, the legal representatives can be impleaded. Without this, it goes without saying that the abatement cannot be set aside. The Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Court being a persona designata is not a court and hence S.5 or the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked in a proceeding pending before the Appellate Authority. This being the position, if an appeal pending before the Appellate Authority stood abated for not impleading the legal representatives in time, the Appellate Authority cannot set aside the abatement on an application to set aside abatement filed after the sixty days provided for by Art.121 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The power for setting aside the abatement is under 0.22 R.4(5), CPC., and not under 0.22 R.9. Even if the power is under 0.22 R.9, the abatement can be set aside only if the application for impleading tiled out of time is allowed. That can be allowed only by condoning the delay in filing the application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. So, at any rate, the Appellate Authority cannot set aside an abatement and dispose of the appeal on the merits. In this case, the Appellate Authority set aside the abatement and allowed the appeal on the merits. It was nothing but illegal. Hence, the learned District Judge who disposed of the petitioner's revision under S.20 of the Act ought to have interfered with the judgment of the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal. In not interfering with the judgment, the District Judge has omitted to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him under S.20 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the District Judge impugned in this Civil Revision is liable to be interfered with by this Court in these proceedings. 5. For the sake of completeness, I proceed to discuss the case of the respondent-landlord on the merits. Therefore, the order of the District Judge impugned in this Civil Revision is liable to be interfered with by this Court in these proceedings. 5. For the sake of completeness, I proceed to discuss the case of the respondent-landlord on the merits. Admittedly, the landlord is working in a College at Kottayam. She is living in a rented building. She has no other building of her own in her possession. In that case, it goes without saying that the respondent-landlord is entitled for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under S.11 (3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court was patently in error in not ordering eviction under S.11 (3) of the Act. 6. Even though the respondent's appeal before the Appellate Authority failed as the same stood abated, the ground for eviction being one under S.11(3) of the Act can be pursued by the respondent-landlord in a fresh petition filed under S.11(3). 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of eviction of the petitioner is set aside. No costs. Allowed.