( 1 ) THE petitioner is the landlord of the premises which was occupied by one R. Premraj. The premises consist of residential and non-residential portions. It was purchased by the petitioner somewhere in 1956. The eviction of the tenant was sought both on the grounds of arrears of rent and also on bonafide and reasonable requirements. Since the tenant deposited all the arrears of rent, that ground was given up. The case proceeded solely on the ground that the landlord required the premises for his reasonable and bonafide requirements. The trial Court accepted the case of the landlord and ordered the eviction. Before the appeal wag filed, the original tenant died. His wife and children filed an appeal before the District judge. The learned District Judge reversed the decision of the trial court. ( 2 ) THE learned District Judge has stated that the landlord has not proved that the premises are reasonably and bonafide required by him. On the question of comparative hardship also he has held against the landlord. ( 3 ) MR. Joshi, learned Counsel for the landlord, strenuously contended that the appellate Court has not properly considered the evidence on record. His next submission was that after the death of the original tenant, his wife and children have no right of protection since the tenant died after the determination of the tenancy. 1 will take up the second contention first. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision in S. P. Hamidsha v. Seshagiri, (1973) 1 Mys. L. J. 127. In the said decision, it is laid down that-"after the termination of the contractual tenancy, the tenant was in the position of a statutory tenant. The protection which he had against being dispossessed by the landlord was personal to him and and could not be transmitted to his legal heirs who answer the description of legal representatives. But under S. 51 of the Act the landlord is enabled to continue the proceedings against the legal representatives. The legal effect of these two principles is that whereas the landlord is entitled to continue the proceedings under the statute, the legal representatives of the deceased tenant are deprived of the protection which their predecessor had as a statutory tenant. "bui, the ratio of the decision would be limited to a non-residential premises and cannot be extended to the residential premises. "bui, the ratio of the decision would be limited to a non-residential premises and cannot be extended to the residential premises. This is evident at para 12 of the judgment that-"whereas in the case of a residential premises the Act considers that some protection must be extended to others who have continued to reside with the deceased tenant, it dqes not consider it necessary to extend protection of the statute to any person beyond the statutory tenant in the case of business premisess. " ( 4 ) THE premises in question consist of both residential and non-residential and one cannot be separated from the other. It is one and indivisible. Therefore, the ratio of the decision, is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. ( 5 ) ON the first contention I have perused the evidence produced by the parties. When every facility is there to the son to carry on his separate business in the premises belonging to his father, I find there is no justification at all for me to disturb the conclusion of the learned Judge that the landlord has failed to make out a case of bonafide use and occupation of the schedule premises for himself. ( 6 ) ON the question of comparative hardship also the finding recorded therein appears to be just. The tenant is having a very big family consisting of not less than fifteen members and they are also belonging to the same business community as that of the landlord, and they have been living there for a number of years. It is in evidence that it is difficult to get an alternate accommodation for such a large family within the means available to them. The learned Judge in my opinion, has correctly concluded that it would cause the legal representatives of the original tenant great hardship if they are evicted from the premises. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed, but no costs. --- *** --- .