Legal representatives can continue eviction proceedings following the original landlord's death if the need for eviction was established as bona fide and relevant to family members.

1. This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Control Court as well as by the Appellate Authority.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original landlord died after the appeal was disposed of and therefore the said subsequent event has totally eclipsed the bona fide need pleaded. It is submitted that the deceased original landlord was a retired Professor from Calicut University and actually he wanted eviction of the petitioner tenant to start a publication and library unit for his purpose and for his mental satisfaction. It is also submitted that the finding by both the authorities regarding the plea under Section 11(3) is concentrated on the said need of the deceased original landlord. It is therefore submitted that the respondents who are the legal representatives, are not entitled to bank upon the same.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the above contention cannot be accepted in the light of the specific pleas raised by the original landlord in the eviction petition, the details spoken to by him in his evidence as P.W.1 and other factors. It is submitted that even in the lawyer notice sent by the landlord (Ext.A1) it has been clearly mentioned that the room is required for the purpose of augmenting income and for managing his family and also to start a publication unit with the help of his children. It is therefore submitted that the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be supported.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner waited for nearly one year for filing this revision petition after the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 22.12.2001. The revision petition was filed only on 7.1.2013. The contention raised is that the tenant cannot take advantage of the death of the original landlord and deny the fruits of the litigation to the legal representatives.

5. First we will consider the pleadings raised by the original landlord. In Ext.A1 it is clearly stated that the schedule building is required for the landlord for starting a publication unit and library for the purpose of research students, mainly for managing the affairs of the family and that too with the help of his sons and in laws. In the eviction petition the crucial averments have been made in para 2. We extract hereinbelow the said paragraph:
"2. The petitioner further adds that, the petitioner is in bona fide requirement of the petition schedule shop for own occupation so as to accommodate the publication and library unit which the petitioner intends to start at the premises. The petitioner is a retired History Professor at the Calicut University, the petitioner is also an author retaining a good library. The petitioner being actively involved in the said field receives several offers of publication. The students of the locality and elsewhere are closely associated with the petitioner in their research and other related activities. They are in need and in search of well equipped library and guidance. The petitioner's son by name Shanavas is also dependant on the petitioner as he does not have his own avocation. Petitioner's daughter byname Shemas, even though married, is not engaged in any activities. The petitioner intends to start the aforesaid business at petition schedule property as petitioner is to raise more funds to pull on with t