Judgment :- Bhat,J. Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction against Thankam Sahadevan, tenant of the premises. Tenant filed appeal R.C.A. 25 of 1990 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge). Pending appeal appellant died on 20-9-1989. An application has to be filed by the legal representatives to get themselves impleaded within fifteen days as required by Rule 10 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979. However they filed the application on 10-11-1989 seeking to get themselves impleaded. Application having been filed beyond the period of fifteen days contemplated under R.10, the Appellate Authority dismissed the application as belated. This order is now challenged. 2. S.18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short'the Act') empowers the Government to constitute Appellate Authorities for the purpose of the Act. Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court may file an appeal within the time stipulated before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall send for the records of the case from the Rent Control Court and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard shall decide the appeal. There is no provision in the statute regarding the impleadment of legal representatives in appeal. Provision is contained in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979. Rule 10 of the Rules reads thus: "Every application for making the Segal representative, or, the legal representatives of a deceased person, party to a proceeding under the Act shall be preferred within 15 days from the date of the death of the person concerned." A learned single judge of this court has in Surendran v. Munsiff (1989 (2) KLT 648) interpreted the words "fifteen days from the date of death of the person concerned" to mean "within fifteen days from the date of knowledge of death of the person concerned". Revision petitioners who sought to get themselves impleaded as legal representatives of the appellant cannot have a case that they obtained knowledge of the death of the appellant several days after the death. Therefore, going, by the above decision, the application for impleadment must be taken to be beyond the time prescribed in R.10. . 3. Revision petitioners who sought to get themselves impleaded as legal representatives of the appellant cannot have a case that they obtained knowledge of the death of the appellant several days after the death. Therefore, going, by the above decision, the application for impleadment must be taken to be beyond the time prescribed in R.10. . 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that R.10 applies only where application for impleadment is filed by one of the parties to the proceeding and it will not apply where legal representatives who are not on the party array file an application to get themselves impleaded as legal representatives. The logic of the argument, according to learned counsel, is that in all cases legal representatives may not be aware of the proceeding and therefore the period must be taken to run only from the date when they came to know of the proceeding. 4. Rule 10 is a statutory rule enacted by. the State Government in pursuance" of the power conferred under S.31. Sub-section (1) of S.31 states that the Government may make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. S.31(2)(e) states that "without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for applications for making legal representatives of deceased persons parties to proceedings under this Act and the time within which such application shall be preferred." Thus the State Government have the power to make rules providing for application to implead legal representatives as parties as also the time within which application should be preferred. Rule 10 prescribed the filing of application and also prescribes time limit as fifteen days from the date of death, which a learned single judge of this court has interpreted to mean as fifteen days from the date of knowledge of death. 5. Rule 10 is clear, certain and precise; there is no ambiguity. It applies to all applications to bring on the party array legal representatives of the deceased person. It is not restricted to applications being filed by persons who are already on the party array, it applies to all such applications where legal representatives are sought to be impleaded without distinction whether the application is made by one of the existing parties to the litigation or by legal representatives who are not already on the party array. It is not restricted to applications being filed by persons who are already on the party array, it applies to all such applications where legal representatives are sought to be impleaded without distinction whether the application is made by one of the existing parties to the litigation or by legal representatives who are not already on the party array. The argument that the Rule applies only where party to a proceeding files an. application cannot be spelled out from the rule and it does not have any rationale or logic. It is also not possible to read the words "fifteen days from the date of death" or "fifteen days from the date of knowledge of the death" as fifteen days from the date of death or knowledge of death or fifteen days from the date of knowledge of death whichever is later". While interpreting a rule court cannot ordinarily supply words or ignore words. This is so particularly in a case where there is no ambiguity in the rule. It is pointed out by learned counsel that in some cases legal representatives of a party may not be aware of the proceeding or even if aware of the proceeding may not be in possession of the details and particulars of the litigation, in which case it may not be possible for them to approach the court within the time prescribed. But that is a situation, which, in our opinion, can be rectified only by the Rule making authority and not by the court. We are quite conscious of the fact that the rule making authority inserted this rule with a view to prevent protraction of proceeding. The positive object of the rule could be achieved and the adverse impact of the Rule in its present form could be avoided if specific power is conferred on the appellate authority to condone delay in filing such applications. 6. We therefore reject the contention that R.10 will not apply to a case where the impleading application is filed by legal representatives who are not on the party array and that Rule will apply only where the application is one filed by one of the parties. Going by the time limit prescribed in R.10, impleading application in this case was filed beyond the time and was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 7. Rule 10 may create hardship in certain cases. Going by the time limit prescribed in R.10, impleading application in this case was filed beyond the time and was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 7. Rule 10 may create hardship in certain cases. It is only just and necessary that the Appellate Authority be conferred with necessary power in appropriate cases to condone delay in filing such applications. The Registrar will forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, for such action as may be deemed fit. The Revision petition is dismissed.