1. Heard on admission.

2. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 25.9.2007 passed by Rent Controlling Authority in Case No. 09/03-04/ 90-7, whereby Rent Controlling Authority rejected the application filed by the applicant under section 23 (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that land lady Kalawati died during the pendency of the proceedings on 26.2.2007 and, therefore, cause of action does not survive to her heirs.

3. The application under section 23 (a) of the Act was filed by Smt. Kalawati before Rent Controlling Authority. During the pendency of the application, she died on 26.2.2007. Thereafter, an application was filed for bringing her legal heirs on record. The said application was allowed and applicants who are legal heirs of Smt. Kalawati were impleaded before the Rent Controlling Authority. The Rent Controlling Authority by the impugned order has stated that applicants do not come within the category of clause U) of section 23 of the Act and they do not belong to such category and, therefore, application was not maintainable and dismissed the same relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Jaiswal v. Joseph and another [1999 (2) MPJR 19]. The question involved in this revision is squarely covered by the decision of Santosh Kumar Jaiswal (supra). Paras 7 and 8 are relevant which read as under:

"7. So far as the definition of the landlord under the general provision is concerned, the proposition regarding the limit on the definition of the 'landlord' is no more res integra. The suit was filed by Smt. Premlata Jacob under special provision in the capacity as a Widow and that capacity was the basis for filing an application for ejectment, then, it is only that capacity which can maintain by the application. The moment the capacity vanishes, the application would become non-maintainable. In the present case, during the pendency of the proceedings, Smt. Premlata died. Her capacity as a Widow vanished. The heirs and LRs cannot step in the capacity of the Widow and therefore, they are not entitled to take advantage of the said. capacity."

"8. So far as the need is concerned, there is a separate provision under the Act and they can resort to that separate provision i.e. section 12 of the Act. Since the capacity of Smt. Premlata has vanished on account of her death, the application for ejectment as a special category of person becomes non-est."

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Indarmal v. Dropdabai [2004 (2) MPLJ 314] reconsidered the question and has held that application is maintainable and learned Rent Controlling Authority committed error in rejecting the application. In the case of Indarmal (supra), it is held that the cases of Narain v. Smt. Ansuyiya [1990 MPLR 517] and Narayan v. Basant Rao [1991 (I) MPLR 166] were not considered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. farina v. Hazzanbai [(2001) 1 MPLR 326]. In both the cases, eviction order was passed and thereafter during pendency of the revision, landlord died and, therefore, it has been held that the eviction order could not be interfered with due to death of special category landlord during pendency of the revision. Para 9 in the case of Indarmal (supra) is relevant which reads as under:

"9. Learned Advocate for respondents has cited Smt. farina v. Hazzanbai [2001 (1) MPLR 326] in which the widow had died during the pendency of revision but the learned Single Judge has held that the application could not continue. Such a view was taken without adverting to Narain v. Smt. Ansuyiya Bai [1990 MPLJ 517] and Narayan v. Basant Rao [1991 (1) MPLR 166] in both these cases decided earlier a different view was taken by Hon'ble Shri R.c. Lahoti, J. (as he then was). There it was held that in case the decision of R.C.A. was not illegal, improper or incorrect, the eviction order could not be interfered with due t