The bona fide personal requirement of the landlord dies with him, and the bona fide requirement of the landlord's family is a requirement of the landlord and not of the legal representatives themselves.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the tenant, Parmeshwari Dass and relates to House No. 117-A, Defence Colony, New Delhi. An eviction petition was instituted by the Late G. R. Kohli, Landlord, claiming eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The case of the respondent was that he was in military service outside Delhi but was later transferred to Delhi on 5th August, 1968 and was due to relire on 1st March, 1969. It was further staled that the landlord was staying with a relative but the landlord of of that relative had also initiated eviction proceedings. The petitioner claimed that he required the premises bona fide for his own residence and the residence of his family. The tenancy of the appellant was terminated by a notice dated 12th October, 1968 and this eviction petition was instituted on 23rd November, 1968. The appellant contested the petition on the ground that there was no cause of action and the petition was premature and also or. the ground that the respondent was not the owner of the premises. It was also contended that the premises were let for both residential and commercial purposes and, hence the claim was not tenable.

( 2 ). The landlord was successful before both the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal. The tenant then appealed to this Court under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The respondent landlord died during the pendency of this appeal on 26th March, 1971 and his hairs, namely his widow Mrs. Savitri Devi, and his sons Ashwani Kumar Kohli and Anjani Kumar Kohli, have been impleaded as his legal representatives One of the questions which arises in this appeal is as to what is to happen in a case based on bona fide personal requirement when the landlord dies during the pendency of a second appeal under the Act in this Court.

( 3 ). I shall first deal with the appeal without reference to the altered circumstances resulting from the death of the landlord. As far as the case on merits is concerned, the claim of the appellant is that there is no proof of the ownership of the property and without proof of the ownership no claim under Section 14 (l) (c) is maintainable The case regarding the lack of proof of ownership is based on the fact that a certified copy of the lease granted by the Government was exhibited without objection in the absence of the counsel of the appellant. It was submitted that secondary evidence was not admissible when the original document was available. However, there is no doubt that the original lease-deed was also filed on record subsequently. The appellant s counsel urges that this evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of proving that the deceased respondent was the owner of the premises It is submitted that the landlord had necessarily to prove the execution of this lease-deed before he could be held to be the owner. Reliance for this proposition is placed on Section 67 of the Evidence Act. It is submilted that the lease-deed cannot be treated as proved unless the original lease-deed is produced and signatures on it are also proved. Though the original lease-deed has been filed, it is submitted that the signature on it have not been proved. The next submission on the merits is that it has not been established that the premises were let out for residence. On this aspect of the case, it is submilted that the courts below have misread the evidence.

( 4 ). On the question of ownership, the Additional Rent Controller held that a certified copy of the leasedeed had been produced as well as receipts of payment of house tax. There was also a statement on oath by the landlord himself stating that he was the owner. This evidence was treated as sufficient to prove ownership. On appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, it was held that as no objection had been taken to the mode of proof when the certified copy of the leasedeed was exhibited, no objection regarding the mode of proof could be taken later. I may ment