ORDER
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether on the
death of the landlord, the requirement of additional accommodation of the landlord
would extinguish without devolving on his legal heirs. The further question is whether
the expression “personal use” is personal to the landlord or whether it would enure to
legal heirs on the landlord’s death?
2. Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent– landlord under Section 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965. Landlord was conducting business in footwear styled as “Thalan Footwears”, adjacent to the tenanted premises. Tenant is conducting medical shop by name Ranji Medicals in the tenanted premises. The premises where the landlord was conducting footwear business has no road frontage. Landlord wanted to expand his business and unless he obtains the tenanted premises he would not be able to run the business profitably. Tenanted premises is situated on the southern side of main road which lies east west. Petition schedule building has got two floors. There are two rooms on the ground floor. Eastern room is the petition schedule building wherein respondent is conducting medical shop. Adjacent building on the west is occupied by the landlord’s brother. Landlord had contended that his requirement for additional accommodation was bona fide and he had also satisfied the test of comparative hardship. Tenant resisted the petition contending that there is no bona fides in the plea. Further it was also stated that the room in which footwear business is conducted is part of a larger building which takes in the tenanted premises also. There is no bona fide in the requirement for additional space by the landlord for running the footwear business. Further it is contended that the space available with the landlord is sufficient for his requirement. It is stated that the landlord was in possession of vacant room on the first floor and the test of comparative hardship would not favour passing of an order of eviction under Section 11(8).
3. Landlord was examined as PW1. Commissioner was examined as PW4. PWs.2, 3 and 5 were also examined on the side of the landlord. PWs. 2 and 3 are the owners of buildings in the locality. They were examined to show that alternate buildings are available in the locality. PW.5 is the Sales Tax Consultant of PW.1 and he was examined to show that there is scope for expansion and earning of greater profits if the landlord gets more space for running the business. RWs. 1 to 5 were examined on the side of the tenant and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. Ext.X1 file was also marked through witness. Rent Control Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that requirement is not bona fide and consequently dismissed the petition. Landlord took up the matter in appeal and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. Hence this revision. The landlord died while the matter was pending before this Court and the legal heirs got themselves impleaded.
4. Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner tenant submitted that since the landlord died while the revision petition was pending before this Court the requirement does not survive. Counsel submitted that the requirement is personal. The statute has made the expression “personal”. Counsel submits since the landlord died “personal use” no more survives and hence the petition be dismissed. We find it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner. Originally landlord was conducting business in footwear. The legal heirs are continuing the business. Landlord felt the necessity of additional accommodation for expanding the existing business. The expression “personal use” used in Section 11 (8) is not related to the person but related to the business. On the death of the landlord it would devolve on the legal heirs. Business is being conducted by the legal heirs and naturally the requirement would continue. It is not as if on the death of the landlord requirement would fade out or vanish. So long as there is requirement of additional accommodation, the requirement would continue and on the death of the landlord such requirement would not extinguish unless legal heirs are not continuing the business. Commissioner has also opined that the landlord can expand his business if he gets the petition schedule premises also. The business could be conducted more profitably if road frontage is obtained. We are of the view, oral evidence adduced by the landlord and the documentary evidence would clearly establish that the requirement is bona fide. Appellate Authority found that first proviso to. Section 11(10) would not stand against the landlord and cannot be a bar for the claim put forward by the landlord. The landlord has also satisfied the test of comparative hardship in his favour.
5. In such circumstances, we find no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant time to the tenant upto 31.12.2004 for vacating the premises on condition that the tenant should file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within one month from today stating that he would vacate the premises within the aforesaid period and would pay arrears of rent, if any, and future rent.