N.K. Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision. The landlord who retired from CRPF sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act contending that he bonafide needs the petition schedule building for starting a stationery business for eking out the livelihood of himself and his family members as he has no other source of income other than the pension he gets. The tenant contended that the need projected is not bonafide. The Rent Control Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties ordered eviction of the revision petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Act. His appeal, RCA No.14/2005 was dismissed.

2. The tenant contends that subsequent to the dismissal of the RCA, the landlord expired and so the need does not survive. According to the revision petitioner the subsequent event ie; the factum of death of the original landlord has to be taken into account and as there is no evidence to show that the need was for family members as well, order of eviction cannot be sustained.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and respondent at length.

4. Whether the death of the landlord long after the dismissal of RCA would be