The legal representatives of a landlord who obtained permission from the Rent Controller to serve a notice to quit on the tenant under Cl.13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order on the ground of bona fide personal occupation have locus standi to file a suit for ejectment even if the landlord dies before the suit is filed, as the cause of action arises from the termination of tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act and not from the ground on which permission to serve the notice to quit was granted.

DHARMADHIKARI, J. :- The non-applicants-plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment, damages, mesne profits etc., against the applicant-defendant. It is an admitted position that the applicant-original defendant was a tenant of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 14/- per month. Original Landlord Ravindra Puri filed an application, amongst other grounds, under Cl.13(3)(vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, referred to hereinafter as the Rent Control Order, seeking permission to serve a notice terminating the tenancy of the applicant-defendant on the ground that he required the premises for his and his family's bona fide personal occupation. Such a permission was granted to late Ravindra Puri by the Rent Controller on 30-3-1970. An appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority on 27-8-1970. Thereafter Ravindra Puri served a notice upon the defendant-tenant under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. When the initial notice came back with a postal endorsement that the tenant had already left the place on 15-12-1970 a fresh notice was affixed to the conspicuous part of the suit house, when according to the plaintiffs, the defendant was inside the house and he refused to accept the notice when tendered. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, the tenancy of the defendant-tenant was validly terminated by a notice dated 13-12-1970 which was affixed to his house on 15-12-1970 terminating his tenancy with effect from 1st January 1971. In the suit the plaintiffs had also claimed notice charges, damages, mesne profits etc.

2. The defendant-tenant resisted the suit and contended that the quit notice was not validly served upon him. He further contended that the original Landlord Ravindra Puri having died on 4-2-1971, that is, after the service of notice under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the suit filed by his legal representatives is not maintainable. According to the applicant-tenant, the permission was secured by late Ravindra Puri on the ground that he required the premises for his bona fide personal occupation. It is on this ground alone the permission was granted by the Rent Controller. Ravindra Puri died on 4-2-1971 after securing the permission and serving the notice. The ground on which the permission was sought and granted to late Ravindra Puri was personal to him and, therefore, after his death the cause of action did not survive. The permission granted by the Rent Controller stood exhausted with the death of late Ravindra Puri and it was obligatory on the part of his legal representatives, the present plaintiffs-non-applicants, to prove their own bona fide need independently. Since this has not been done and since a fresh permission from the Rent Controller is not obtained by the legal representatives of deceased Ravindra Puri the present suit is not maintainable.

3. It is pertinent to note at this stage that as Ravindra Puri died on 4-2-1971, the present suit for ejectment was filed by his legal representatives, namely his widow and his minor children. At the trial on behalf of the plaintiffs, Smt. Pramilabai, plaintiff No.1 and Madan Thakur (P.W.2) were examined. A certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Controller was also placed on record. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself entered into the witness-box.

4. After appreciating all the evidence on record, the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, Nagpur, came to the conclusion that on 15-12-1970 the notice was tendered to the defendant-tenant and he refused to accept it, and therefore it was affixed at a conspicuous place on the house occupied by the defendant as a tenant. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge recorded a finding of fact that the quit notice was validly served on the defendant on 15-12-1970. The learned Judge also negatived the contention raised on behalf of the defendant that the suit was not maintainable, because the caus