(1.) THE tenants who are unsuccessful in both the courts below are the petitioners in the above revision petition. One PL. Chidambaram, the erstwhile landlord has filed R. C. O. P. No. 5632 of 1982 on the file of the Rent controller, Court of Small Causes at Madras, praying for eviction of the tenants on grounds of wilful default, commission of acts of wastes and material alteration of the building without the written consent of landlord and bona fide requirement of the portion under the occupation of the tenant as additional accommodation for the respondents business under secs. l0 (2), (1), 10 (2) (iii) and 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings, (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the act . THE tenants contested the claims of the erstwhile landlord for eviction and recovery of possession on the above grounds, by filing a detailed counter affidavit. During the pendency and trial of the petition, after giving deposition, the erstwhile landlord died on 6. 11. 1987. THE legal representatives of the deceased landlord have filed an application for bringing the respondents herein (petitioners 2 to 6, therein), on record to continue the proceedings and the same was ordered on 12. 11. 1990 in M. P. No. 50 of 1988. THE Rent Controller, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the respective parties, rejected the claim made under Secs. l0 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (iii)of the Act, but sustained the claim for recovery of possession made on the ground of bona fide requirement of additional accommodation under Scc. l0 (3) (c)of the Act, by his order dated 23. 10. 1991.
(2.) AGGRIEVED, the tenants filed R. C. A. No. 1185 of 1991, challenging the order of evict ion. The appellate authority also by its order dated 23. 4. 1992 confirmed the order of eviction made on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlords for additional accommodation and rejected the appeal. Not satisfied, the tenants have come before this Court objecting to the orders of the authorities below.
(3.) IN the decision reported in Vijayaraghavan v. Md. Yakub rowther, (1976)1 M. LJ. 128. Rama prasada Rao, J. (as the learned Judge then was) considered a similar issue in the context of the maxim actio personalis mortiur cum persona to a case like the one under consideration. That was a case where the landlady sought for eviction on grounds of wilful default and need for personal occupation for carrying on business. The original authority ordered eviction and during the pendency of the appeal by the tenant, the landlady died resulting in the husband, son and daughter being brought on record. After the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed, the same was challenged before this Court in revision and the husband also died pending revision. The question that cropped up for decision was whether the son and daughter were entitled to the order of eviction. The learned Judge held that the Latin maxim referred to supra, had certain exceptions and one such exception could be invoked having regard to the peculiar nature of the right obtained by the landlord or landlady under the provisions of the Act. Of course, the learned Judge placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Rani v. Naubat Rai, A. I. R 1973 S. C. 2110, which later came to be declared as no longer good law in a subsequent decision reported in Shantilal Thakurdas v. Chimanlal Madanlal Teewal, A. I. R 1976 S. C. 2358.