J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is tenants revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed an application under Section 13-A, of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended.

2. According to the landlord Shiv Dutt Pr0ashar, (now deceased) he was a "specified landlord", whereas Om Parkash. petitioner. was a tenant in respect of the rooms for the last many years at the rate of Rs. 50/ per month and was also in arrears of rent with effect from February 1, 1986. According to him, he was is service in the Indian Railways and retired in July, 1977. Since he did riot owe and possess any suitable accommodation in Hoshiarpur where he intended to reside, the two rooms, the verandah and the kitchen bad fallen to his share in the family partition. They are a part and parcel of the residential building. They were being used as such by him, Be could not enjoy the remaining rooms in his possession in the absence of the two rooms, in dispute, for the purpose of his considerce; hence he filed the ejectment application on November 17, 1986.

3. The tenant was allowed the permission to contest the application. In the written statement, be denied the allegations made in the ejectment application The learned Rent Controller found that the deceased Shiv Dutt Prashar, was a "specified landlord", within the meaning of Section 2 (hh) of the aforesaid Act; hence he was entitled to maintain the ejectment application for the demised premises. The plea of the tenant that the demised premises were given for running a school and, therefore, they could not be held to be residential one, was negatived, on the ground that they were an integralpart of the large part of the building and, therefore, they did not lose the basic character of the residential building simply became its two rooms have been used for commercial purpose for a long time by the tenant and the landlord acquiesced to it In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed on May 7, 1988.

4. The tenant appeared in person and argued the case.

5. He submitted that the landlord died during the pendency of this revision petition and, therefore, his heirs have no bona fide requirement to occupy the premises and on this ground alone the revision petition should be allowed, in support of the contention, the tenant relied upon Panna Lal v. Smt Kamla Devi, (1990-1) 97 P. L. R. 178. He further submitted that since the demised premises are being used as a school since 1965 and in the earlier ejectment application filed by the landlord they were held to be a non-residential building, the same operated as res judicata and, therefore, the premises could not be vacated being non residential. He also submitted that the demised premises did cot form part of the residential building There was no facility of any kitchen etc., for the same were situated in any residential locality as such. In this behalf, reference was made to Rajinder Paul v. Raj Paul, 1990 H. R. R. 522.

6. After hearing the petitioner, in person, and going through the record, I do net find any merit in this revision petition. The mere fact that the landlord has died during the pendency of this petition in this Court, is of be consequence. Panna Lals case (supra), relied upon by the tenant in this behalf does not support his case ; rather it has been Inter alia held therein that all the legal representatives, in general law, are entitled to fight on the same cause of action having the same rights which vested in a person who has come to the Court of law.

7. As regards the argument that the earlier judgment in which it was held that the premises in dispute are non-residential operates as res judicata has no force in view of the judgments of this Court that in case the residential premises are let out for non-residential purposes. without the permission of the Rent Controller, the nature of the premises does not change and they still continue to be residential Thus, there is no illegality in the view taken by the Rent Con