S.D.ANAND, J.

1. The controversy requiring adjudication lies in a narrow compass.

2. The respondent-landlady Harminder kaur applied for the ejectment of petitioners herein from the tenanted premises on a plea of personal bonafide necessity. The plea was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 4.3.2008. The order was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, vide its judgment dated 8.9.2009. The respondent-landlady died during the pendency of the appeal. A plea was raised before the learned Appellate Authority to the effect that petition deserves dismissal on account of the death of the respondent-landlady because the only premise to obtain the order for ejectment was based upon her own necessity which ended with her death. The plea did not find favour with the learned

3. Appellate Authority which held that "bonafide requirement of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application and the subsequent development during the pendency of the eviction petition due to slow process of litigation should not be permitted to be misused by the sitting tenant". The learned Appellate authority, in obtaining that view, relied upon 2005 (1) RCR (Rent) 178, 2004 (2) RCR (Rent) 436 and 2004 (2) PLR 845.

4. In revision against that order, the only point raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the personal bonafide need of the respondent-landlady (presently represented by her legal representatives) having ceased to exist on her death, there was no alternative before the learned Appellate Authority but to dismiss the petition. In support of the averment, reliance was placed upon Mohd. Ismail Vs. Dinkar Vinayakrao dorlikar 2009 (4) R. C. R. (Civil) 890.

5. In an act of resistance, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued in favour of the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Appellate authority. In the plea raised to resist the arguments raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior counsel relied upon Kamleshwar Prasad Vs. Pradumanju Aggarwal 1997 (1) RCR 591 and Shakuntala Bai and others Vs. Narayan Dass and others 2004 (1) RCR 581.

6. Before proceeding to adjudicate upon the controversy, it may be noticed that it is beyond the pale of controversy that the respondent-landlady had applied for ejectment of the petitioner- tenant on a plea of her personal bonafide necessity. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant is denuded on merit. The reasons therefor are as under:-

In shakuntala Bai and others and Kamleshwar Prasads cases (supra), there was a categorical law laid down by the Apex Court that the need of the landlord is to be adjudicated upon in relation to the date on which the petition was filed. In kamlehswar Prasads case, the landlord had applied for ejectment of tenant from the tenanted premises in order to be able to start his own business. On a finding that the landlord had not been able to prove that he requires the premises for his own use, that petition under the relevant Rent Act came to be rejected. The Prescribed Authority also came to the conclusion that "tenant would be comparatively harassd if an order of eviction is passed. " However, the appellate Authority re-appreciated the entire evidence and recorded a finding of reversal. It was held by the Appellate Authority that "in the facts and circumstances to the case of the requirement of the landlord to start a cloth bushiness must be a bona fide requirement entitling him to get an order of eviction under Sec.21 (1) (a) of the Act. "

7 The tenant opted to file a writ petition before the High Court. The landlord died during the pendency of the writ petition and was substituted by his legal representatives i. e. his widow, two sons and a married daughter. A plea, raised on behalf of the tenant before the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, was that the death of the landlord ended the plea qua personal requirement. The plea raised on b