O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

The respondent in R.C.P.No.106 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Vatakara, is the revision petitioner. That R.C.P. was filed by the respondents-landladies seeking eviction of the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and it was allowed on 09.02.2021. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed this Revision under Section 20 of the Act.

2. On 14.07.2022, notice was ordered on admission.

The respondents entered appearance through her learned counsel.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The eviction proceedings was initiated in the year

2007. As per the order dated 30.08.2008, the Rent Control Court dismissed the R.C.P. In the appeal, that order was set aside and eviction was ordered as per judgment dated 09.09.2010. The matter was carried to this Court by filing R.C.Rev.No.311 of 2010. This Court as per the order dated 10.08.2011 set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. On 21.12.2011, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing R.C.A.No.36 of 2012. That appeal was dismissed and the order of eviction was confirmed as per the judgment dated 24.11.2015. Challenging the said concurrent findings, the petitioner filed R.C.Rev.No.24 of 2016. The landlord died by that time. Additional respondents 2 to 5, who are his legal representatives, came on record. This Court, after considering the contentions of the petitioner that on the death of the original landlord, the need projected stood abated and also the other contentions, set aside the order of eviction. The matter was again remanded to the Rent Control Court. Paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the order of this Court dated

05.12.2018 in R.C.Rev.No.24 of 2012 read as follows:-

“7. In the above analysis, we find that the facts of the instant case cannot be compared with the facts in Alavi K.P v. Jameela P.P. & Others [2014 (1) KLJ 318] and Narayanan v. Tahira [2009 (3) KLT 749]. Therefore, the proposition laid down in the aforesaid decision in view of the particular facts of that case cannot be taken as a ratio decidendi which can be applied to the instant case. We find that, in view of the pleadings in the Rent Control Petition which is confined to the own occupation of the deceased landlord alone, the cause of action based on the bona fide need will not survive after the death of the landlord. Therefore, the bona fide need will stand abated; but we are of the opinion that the legal heirs of the deceased landlord can be given an opportunity to amend the Rent Control Petition, if they also bona fide require the petition schedule shop room for their own occupation.

8. In the above view, the impugned judgments passed by the courts below will stand set aside and the Rent Control petition is remitted to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal, if the legal heirs of the deceased landlord proceeds with the amendment, within one month from the date of appearance before the Rent Control Court. If the legal heirs proceed with the Rent Control petition, the same shall be disposed of at the earliest, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of their appearance.”

5. In the light of the said observations, the respondents got the R.C.P. amended by adding paragraph Nos.4 and 5, which read,-

“4A. Pending above petition, the petitioner died. Supplemental petitioner 2 to 5 are the wife and children of deceased petitioner. Supplemental petitioners 2 to 5 have no job or income. Supplemental petitioners 3 to 5 have husbands and children. They are depending on their husbands for meeting their expenses. All the petitioners likes to have job and income of their own. Therefore they b