Additional accommodation was for the personal benefit of the deceased.

The tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent herein is the landlord as at present; his father (who is now no more) filed the eviction petition against the petitioner herein for the purpose of getting additional accommodation under section 10 (3) (c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

2. The petitioner herein has been a tenant under the father of the respondent herein occupying a portion viz., a small shop portion measuring 2’ x 5’ in premises No. 16, Govindappa Naicken Street, G.T., Madras, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. The petitioner is carrying on a business in the said portion as electrician. The father of the respondent was carrying on business in stationery and general stores in a portion in the ground-floor of the said premises, No. 16, Govindappa Naicken Street, and required the portion in the occupation of the petitioner herein also, bona fide for his additional accommodation. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal to the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, eviction was ordered on the finding that the respondent required the building under the occupation of the petitioner bona fide for his additional accommodation. The appellate authority has taken into account the increase in the business turnover of the respondeat and has come to the conclusion that the business of the respondent requires additional accommodation.

3. It cannot be said that the decision arrived at by the appellate authority is not based upon any evidence. The appellate authority has discussed the bona fides of the requirements of the respondent as also the balance of convenience as between the parties and after properly appreciating the evidence on record and taking into consideration the balance of convenience, has ordered eviction.

4. The present revision petition is against the order directing the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession off the premises in the occupation of the respondent. I find no infirmity, or illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the decision arrived at by the appellate authority.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the benefit of the eviction cannot enure to the present respondent, inasmuch as he is the son and legal representative of the petitioner in the eviction petition. According to the learned Counsel, the benefit is personal in nature and once the person who filed the eviction petition is no more, there cannot be any order in favour of his legal representative. For this proposition, he cites the decision in Mohmed Mia Ibrahim. v. Rahiman Khan1. Tyagarajan, J., held in that decision that an order of the Rent Controller directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of his house on the ground that the landlord desired to occupy the house himself is one for the personal benefit of the landlord and is not capable of execution after the death of the landlord at the instance of his legal representatives. In the abovesaid case, the landlady filed the eviction petition on the ground of owner’s occupation. The said petition was filed under the Madras House Rent Control Order. 1945. The landlady who got the eviction order before the Rent Controller on 12th September, 1945 confirmed by the appellate authority on 10th October, 1945, died on 6th November, 1945. Application for execution of the eviction order was made by her legal representatives before the Sub-Judge, Guntur. Both the Courts below found that the order was executable in view of section 7-A (5) of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1945. On further appeal, Tyagarajan, J. after discussing the facts of that particular case, and observing that the landlady required the house for her own use and as such the same was a personal right, allowed the same. The learned Judge also held:

"My decision, however, does not mean that if in future there are circumstances which would entitle the legal representatives to ask for eviction against the tenant