Judgment

M. K. MUKHERJEE, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. This appeal stems from the judgment and order dated October 31, 1991 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Civil Revision Petition No. 4138 of 1990. Facts and circumstances leading to this appeal are as under:-

On March 22,1973 one P. V. Jayashankar filed an application in the first Court of the Munsiff at Bangalore under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking recovery of possession of his non-residential premises from his tenant, the respondent herein. Though recovery of possession was sought for on various grounds the trial Court, by its judgment and order dated October 24, 1980, allowed the application solely on the ground that the suit premises were bona fide required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation and directed the tenant to handover vacant possession of the same to Shri Jayashankar. The trial Court granted two years time to the tenant to comply with its direction. Against the order of eviction the tenant preferred a revision petition in the High Court of Karnataka which was dismissed on December 19, 1993. The High Court, however, granted four years time to the tenant to vacate the premises. Assailing the order of dismissal of his revision petition, the tenant filed a Special Leave Petition in this Court which was also dismissed.

3. Before the period of four years granted by the High Court to the tenant to vacate the premises expired, Jayashankar died-on October 26, 1986, to be precise. He left behind a Will dated June 11, 1986 under which the suit premises were bequeathed to his brother, his wife and their son, the three appellants herein.

4. On the failure of the tenant to vacate the premises within the period of four years, which expired on December 31, 1987, the appellants, as legatees under the Will and legal representatives of the deceased Jayashankar, filed an application for execution of the order for eviction in the Court of the Small Causes, Bangalore on March 7, 1988. In resisting the execution, the tenant first contended that the order for eviction having been made solely on the ground of bona fide use and occupation of the premises by Jayashankar to carry on a business, it had become ineffective, unenforceable in executable on his death. The tenant next Contended that the order of eviction being personal, it could not be inherited by or assigned in favour of the legal representatives. The tenant also assailed the genuineness of the Will.

5. Overruling the objections raised by the tenant, the Executing Court passed an order on July 20, 1990 directing issuance of a delivery warrant. The Executing Court took the view that, sitting in execution, it could not go behind decree. According to the Court, once the decree for eviction had become final it could not be agitated that the decree had become infructuous as the personal requirement of landlord for its own use and occupation had come to an end with his death. The Court lastly held that on the death of the landlord the rights created by the decree stood transferred in favour of the legal representatives and the same could not be defeated on the ground that the decree-holder had died.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court, the tenant preferred a revision petition before the High Court. By its judgment and order dated October 31, 1991, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Executing Court and dismissed the eviction petition on the grounds that the cause of action did not survive on the death of the landlord and that the legatees, claiming as legal representatives of the deceased landlord, could not execute the decree for eviction which was purely personal.

7. In the context of the admitted facts that Jayashankar sought recovery of possession of the suit premises for his personal requirement to start a business of his own and that he died after the Special Leave Petition filed by the tenant in this Court against the order of eviction w