Ramachandran, J.

Concurrent finding entered into respectively by the Rent Controller, Tirur in R.C.P.No.23 of 1994 and the Appellate Authority, Manjeri in R.C.P.No.28 of 1995 is challenged by the tenant in these proceedings.

2. Mr. P. Chandrasekhar, appearing for the petitioner/tenant had confined his argument on one issue, namely as to the effect of the demise of the petitioner before the Rent Control Appellate Authority during the pendency of the appeal. He submits that the Appellate Authority had failed to take notice of the impact in its proper perspective. Advertence was made to the decisions of this court in Kutty Krishan V. Cheriyeri Raran [2001 (3) KLT SN 29 – Case No.41] as well as Jayarajan V. Yesoda [2003 (2) KLT 325].

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlords placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported as Kamleshwar Prasad V. Pradumanju Agarwal [AIR 1997 SC 2399] as well as Mathew V. Thomas v. Sali Sunny 2003 (1) KLJ 186.

4. The landlord, deceased Kammu, had filed an application under section 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short, the Act). According to him, the room was let out