Judgment : This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No.6016 of 1990 in O.S. No.8648 of 1981 on the file of the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The legal representative of the deceased defendant is the petitioner herein. I.A. No.6016 of 1990 was filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 472 days in filing the application to set aside the order of dismissal for default and to restore the application in I.A. No. 1771 of 1986 in O.S. No.8648 of 1981. The plaintiff filed O.S. No.8648 of 1981, against the deceased Kothai Ammal for ejectment from the suit property. The tenant filed an application under Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and the same was allowed and a Commissioner was appointed to fix up the market value of the suit property and also to fix the extent required for the convenient enjoyment of the deceased defendant. I.A. No.1771 of 1986 came up for filing of the Commissioner’s report on 4. 1988. In the meanwhile, the defendant Kothai Ammal died on 15. 1988. The deceased defendant had executed a will dated 21. 1980 which was also registered. The petitioner herein is the sole legatee under the will. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for grant of Letters of Administration with the will annexed in O.P. No.78 of 1989 on the file of the High Court, Madras and the same was ordered on 26. 1989. Copy Application No.3358 of 1989 was filed on 26. 1989 and the copy of the order was delivered on 211. 1989. Immediately the petitioner filed an application to implead herself as the proposed legal representative of the deceased defendant/ petitioner Kothai Ammal. There was delay in filing the application to set aside the order of dismissal of application in LA. No.1772 of 1986. The said delay was occasioned on account of obtaining probate in the High Court. It was therefore prayed the petitioner should be permitted to be impleaded as the legal representative of Kothai Ammal and the delay in filing the application to set aside the order of dismissal for default of the application in I.A. No. 1771 of 1986 should be condoned. 2. The Devasthanam- plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit stating that Kothai Ammal filed the application under Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. A Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner filed his report. 2. The Devasthanam- plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit stating that Kothai Ammal filed the application under Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. A Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner filed his report. Since there was no representation on behalf of the tenant, the application was dismissed on 11. 1988. No steps were taken to bring the legal representative on record. The applicant has never informed the death of Kothai Ammal on 15. 1988. The applicant has no right to claim as a legal representative. The Devasthanam does not know the proceedings in O.P. No.78 of 1989. There is a delay of 472 days in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order. The present applicant is not a legal heir to the said Kothai Ammal. As a third party she is not entitled to file this application. Therefore it was pleaded that the application should be dismissed. .3. On considering the facts arising in this case, the lower court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein. It is against that order the present revision has been preferred by the legal representative of Kothai Ammal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Kothai Ammal is the tenant in respect of the land belonging to Devasthanam. In the ejectment suit, she filed a petition under Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. A Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner also filed his report. In the meanwhile, Kothai Ammal died. She left a will bequeathing her properties to the petitioner herein. The petitioner approached the High Court to probate the will. In the meanwhile Kothai Ammal died and Application No.1771 of 1982 was dismissed for default. Since the petitioner approaching the High Court for probating the will the petitioner could not approach the lower court in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order in time. If the time taken for probating the will is taken into consideration, there is reasonable cause for condoning the delay. It was therefore submitted that the lower court was not correct in dismissing the application to condone the delay in setting aside the ex parte order. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there was long delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. There was no information with regard to the death of Kothai Ammal. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there was long delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. There was no information with regard to the death of Kothai Ammal. The petitioner herein is not the legal representative of the said Kothai Ammal. She is only a third party. The petitioner could have filed the petition to set aside the ex parte order soon after the death of Kothai Ammal. But she did not do so. Even assuming that the will was probated in the High Court and order was passed on 211. 1989, this petition was filed only on 22. 1990. Thus, there is a period of three months in between the grant of probate and the filing of this petition. There was no explanation for this delay. Therefore, it was submitted that the lower court was correct in dismissing this application. .5. I have heard the rival submissions. The fact remains that the Devasthanam filed the suit for ejectment against the Kothai Ammal. Kothai Ammal claimed right under the City Tenants Protection Act. She filed the petition under Sec.9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. A Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner also filed his report determining the extent of land required for the convenient enjoyment of the tenant. Though the tenant as well as the landlord filed objections to the Commissioner’s report thereafter instead of following the procedure prescribed under the City Tenants Protection Act, the lower court disposed of both the suit as well as the application filed under Sec.9 of the Act. Normally, after the Commissioner filed his report determining the extent of land required for the convenient enjoyment of the tenant and after determining the average market value of the land in question for a period of three years preceding the presentation of the petition, the court would grant 36 months time to the tenant to pay the value of the land. If the tenant failed to pay the value of the land within that time, the landlord is entitled to file a petition for determining the value of the superstructure, and after determining the value of the superstructure, time would be granted to the landlord to deposit the value of the superstructure. If the tenant failed to pay the value of the land within that time, the landlord is entitled to file a petition for determining the value of the superstructure, and after determining the value of the superstructure, time would be granted to the landlord to deposit the value of the superstructure. Thereafter, on payment of the value of the superstructure, the landlord would be given possession of the land in question. In the present case all these procedures were not adopted by the lower court. But both the suit as well as the application, I.A. No.1771 of 1982 were disposed of together. 6. Now the petitioner states that she is a legatee under the will executed by the tenant Kothai Ammal. Kothai Animal died on 15. 1988. The will was executed and registered on 21. 1980. It was probated certified copy of the order of probate was granted on 211. 1989. The petitioner could have filed the petition immediately after obtaining the certified copy of the probate proceedings. But the petition was filed on 22. 1980. Between 211. 1989 and 22. 1990 there is a period of three months which delay is not explained by the petitioner. Further, Kothai Ammal died on 15. 1988 and O.P. No.78 of 1989 was filed on 9. 1988. The delay between 15. 1988 and 9. 1988 was also not explained. At least the petitioner herein could have filed the petition to implead as the legal representative of Kothai Ammal, soon after the death of Kothai Ammal, on the basis of the will said to have been executed in her favour. But she has not done so. Therefore there is no sufficient cause shown for the delay from 15. 1988 to 9. 1988 and from 211. 1989 to 22. 1990. In the absence of sufficient cause, it is not possible for this Court to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order. Therefore, this Court has no other alternative but to accept the order passed by the lower court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision. 7. In the result, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, no order is necessary in C.M.P. No.8912 of 1992.