Death of landlord during the pendency of eviction proceedings.

The tenants who are unsuccessful in both the courts below are the petitioners in the above revision petition. One PL.Chidambaram, the erstwhile landlord has filed R.C.O.P.No.5632 of 1982 on the file of the Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes at Madras, praying for eviction of the tenants on grounds of wilful default, commission of acts of wastes and material alteration of the building without the written consent of landlord and bona fide requirement of the portion under the occupation of the tenant as additional accommodation for the respondents’ business under Secs.l0(2), (1), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings, (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The tenants contested the claims of the erstwhile landlord for eviction and recovery of possession on the above grounds, by filing a detailed counter affidavit. During the pendency and trial of the petition, after giving deposition, the erstwhile landlord died on 11. 1987. The legal representatives of the deceased landlord have filed an application for bringing the respondents herein (petitioners 2 to 6, therein), on record to continue the proceedings and the same was ordered on 111. 1990 in M.P.No.50 of 1988. The Rent Controller, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the respective parties, rejected the claim made under Secs.l0(2)(i) and 10(2)(iii) of the Act, but sustained the claim for recovery of possession made on the ground of bona fide requirement of additional accommodation under Scc.l0(3)(c) of the Act, by his order dated 210. 1991.

2. Aggrieved, the tenants filed R.C.A.No.1185 of 1991, challenging the order of evict ion. The appellate authority also by its order dated 24. 1992 confirmed the order of eviction made on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlords for additional accommodation and rejected the appeal. Not satisfied, the tenants have come before this Court objecting to the orders of the authorities below.

.3. Mr.V.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioncrs/tenants, contended that the R.C.O.P. among other grounds was filed by the erstwhile landlord PL.Chidambaram, for eviction and recovery of possession on the ground of his bona fide requirement for his business and consequently his legal representatives cannot continue the said petition after coming on record as the legal representatives of the deceased landlord in the absence of a specific claim and proof of their bona fide requirement for their business. It was contended that the claim made by the deceased landlord was personal to him and on his death, the legal representatives cannot sustain or continue the petition already filed for additional accommodation. The learned counsel also invited my attention to Sec. 10(3)(c) of the Act and the difference in phraseology relating to the claim for owner’s occupation as envisaged under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and also invited my attention to the decisions in Muhammad Ibrahim v. Rahiman Khan, (1947)2 M.L.J. 419, R.Govindarajv. Venkateswaran, (1972)2 M.L.J. 231, Vijayaraghavan v. Md.Yakub Rowther, (1976)1 M.L.J. 128 and Shantilal Thakurdas v. Chimanlal Madanlal Teewal, A.I.R 1976 S.C. 2358.

4. Mr.SJagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-landlords, while traversing the claim and submissions made on behalf of the petitioners-tenants, relied upon the decisions in R.Govindaraj v. Venkateswaran, (1972)2 M.L.J. 231 and Akilandammal v. S.C.Shah, 92 L.W. 324, as well as the amendment ordered to the petition and also the examination of P.W.5, one of the legal representatives of the deceased landlord on 20.9.1991 to reiterate and affirm and continued need and necessity and bona fide requirements of the landlords for the purposes of the business carried on by the erstwhile landlord which they are continuing even after his death. In other words, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that so long as the business