( 1 ) AGGRIEVED of the order dated 13-5-2003 in R. A. No. 217 of 2002, by the learned Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application setting aside the order dated 2-5-2002 passed in I. A No. 197 of 1995 in R. C. No. 604 of 1993 by the learned II Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, leaving it open for the respondent herein to approach the Civil Court for declaration of his tenancy rights, the proposed party said to be nephew of the deceased tenant filed this revision petition. ( 2 ) FEW facts that are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner herein is the nephew of the deceased tenant, late Syed Ahmed mohiuddin, who died on 26-11-1995 leaving behind the petitioner as his successor. It is the case of the petitioner that he was assisting the deceased in his business being run in the mulgi and after his death, he is running the business in the said mulgi and, therefore, he being in possession of the mulgi, sought to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the eviction petition. The case of the respondent-Landlord is that the averment that the petitioner was his hereditary successor or that he performed his late rites is false. The possession of the petitioner along with late Ahmed Mohiuddin and his assisting him in the business is also denied, but immediately after death of mohiuddin, the petitioner forcibly occupied the mulgi and, as such, he is not entitled to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the eviction petition. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court in deciding the point whether the petitioner is entitled to be impleaded as second respondent in the main eviction petition in RC No. 604 of 1993 has adverted to the evidence of P. W. 1 the petitioner herein and R. W. 1, landlord. Dwelling upon the admission of the landlord that the deceased tenant, is maternal uncle of P. W. 1 and other documents Exs. P-5 and 6 (fatwa, in urdu) and Ex. Dwelling upon the admission of the landlord that the deceased tenant, is maternal uncle of P. W. 1 and other documents Exs. P-5 and 6 (fatwa, in urdu) and Ex. P-23 wedding card showing the relationship of the petitioner as nephew of the deceased tenant and his further admission that after the death of the decesed tenant, he saw the petitioner carrying on business in the petition schedul property, the trial court held that the petitioner herein is in possession of the petition schedule premises. It is further observed that since the petitioner was in possession of Exs. P-25 and 26 demand notices and Exs. P-27 to 30 Central Sales tax c Forms, held that after the death of the deceased-tenant, the petitioner was in possession and running the business and as such, held that the petitioner can be treated as legal representative of the deceased tenant and thus allowed the petition permitting him to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the RC. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED of this order and decree, the landlord preferred appeal being R. A. No. 217 of 2002; and the learned Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal holding that the respondent is at liberty to approach the civil court for declaration of his tenancy rights, if so advised. ( 5 ) ASSAILING the correctness of this order, the petitioner-tenant filed this revision petition, contending inter alia that when the case of the petitioner stood fully covered by the definition of legal representative under rule 19 (1) of the Rules framed under the a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (for brevity the Act) which emphasized any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased, the lower appellant court has gone wrong in allowing the appeal. It is also contended that the lower appellate court has erred in exercising the power under Rule 19 (3) by referring the status of the petitioner to a civil court for adjudication, as legal representative of the original tenant, without keeping in abeyance the proceedings in R. C. No. 604 of 1993 and, therefore, sought for interference of this court. ( 6 ) THE arena of controversy is simple but interesting. Before, adverting to the facts, it is apposite to refer to the legal provisions, having a bearing on the subject. ( 6 ) THE arena of controversy is simple but interesting. Before, adverting to the facts, it is apposite to refer to the legal provisions, having a bearing on the subject. In sorting out the controversy, the question that acquires prime importance is "who is a tenant". Section 2 (ix) of the Act defines the tenant in the following terms:". . . TENANT means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son or daughter, of a deceased tenant, who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of tenant s family upto the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a local authority. . . . " ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, neither the petitioner contends that he is tenant nor does he fall within the definition of a tenant, as defined under the Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is covered by the definition of legal representative of the deceased- original tenant. Legal Representative is not defined under the Act. Therefore, I shall now scrutinize whether the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased-original tenant or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a legal representatives in terms of Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads"". . LEGAL Representative means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. . . " ( 8 ) PLACING reliance on this definition, the learned counsel tor the petitioner submitted. that it is borne out by evidence that the petitioner stood as surety for the loan obtained by the deceased tenant and the demand notices Exs. . . " ( 8 ) PLACING reliance on this definition, the learned counsel tor the petitioner submitted. that it is borne out by evidence that the petitioner stood as surety for the loan obtained by the deceased tenant and the demand notices Exs. P-25 and 26 were issued against him, that he performed the post-Odeath rituals of the original tenant and, therefore, he can be said to be intermeddling with the estate of the deceased and thus falls within the ambit of Sec. 2 (11) of the code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the order of the lower appellate court referring the issue to the civil court under sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 of the Rules, is bad and is liable to be set aside. Reliance is sought to be placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this court in R. Ramanujam v. D. Venkat Rao and another, wherein the Bench held that where a tenant dies, his legal heir is entitled to claim tenancy rights by operation of law in respect of the premises for which the deceased was the tenant, even though he does not come under any of the categories enumerated in Sec. 2 (ix) of the Rent Control act. This right is conferred on a statutory tenant by virtue of the incident of heritability just as it is available in the case of a contractual tenant. ( 9 ) THE Rules were framed by the governor of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-sees. (1), (2) and (3) of Sec. 30 of the Act and the said rules were gazetted vide GO Ms. No. 547 general Administration (Accommodation-B) dated 29-4-1961 on 18-5-1961. Rule 19, which has a bearing on this issue, reads as under:". . . . . EVERY application for making the legal representative or, as the case may be, the legal representatives of a deceased person, party to a proceeding under the Act, shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the death of the person concerned. Rule 19, which has a bearing on this issue, reads as under:". . . . . EVERY application for making the legal representative or, as the case may be, the legal representatives of a deceased person, party to a proceeding under the Act, shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the death of the person concerned. Explanation: For the purpose of this rule: (1) Legal representative means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues, or sued in a representative character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased person, such question shall be referred to a Civil Court for determination. . . . " ( 10 ) EVIDENTLY, sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 was gazetted on 18-5-1961 and since then it is on the statute book. Unfortunately, the said aspect was not brought to the notice of the division Bench in Ramanujam s case, lest the judgment would have been different. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this judgment, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A plain reading of rule 19 (3) makes it abundantly clear that it is the civil court which has to decide the lis as regards whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased person. For these reasons, the order impugned therein is set aside and is remanded back to the Trial Court for referring the limited question to the Civil court for a finding with regard to the heritability of the petitioner as the legal representative heir of the deceased original tenant. On receipt of such a finding from the civil court, the rent controller is directed to dispose of the RC in accordance with law. ( 11 ) WITH these directions, the Civil revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.