MODI J.—The only point involved in this second appeal by the defendant-tenants is whether the legal representatives of the landlord (since deceased) have no right to continue the suit tor eviction based on bonafide and reasonable requirement of the premises for the residence of the plaintiff himself and for the residence of the members of his family. 2. To appreciate the point involved, it is necessary to state the relevant facts. Munshiram (now deceased) filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-appellants on two-fold grounds. Firstly, that the plaintiff required the premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of himself and the members of his family and secondly, that the defendants had committed default in payment of rent. The appellants resisted the suit and denied that the plaintiff required the premises reasonably and bonafide for his own use or for the use of his family members. The defendants further pleaded that they had tendered the rent by money order to the plaintiff and as such they committed no default in payment of rent. They also took the plea that the notice to quit sent by the plaintiff was not valid. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:— ¼1½ vk;k tk;nkn eqruktk dh oknh dh usd o tk;t t:jr gS\ ¼2½ vk;k eqnk;yk us fdjk;k VsUMj fd;k vksj euhvksMZj }kjk Hkstk blfy;s fdjk;k vnk;xh esa dksbZ fMQkYV ugh fd;k\ ¼3½ vk;k uksfVl butyk; uktk;t gS\ ¼4½ nknjlh D;k gksxh\ The trial court after evidence decided all the issues in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff Munshiram then preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Alwar. During the pendency of the appeal, Munshiram died and his legal representatives were impleaded in his place as the appellants The learned District Judge on consideration of the evidence led by the parties held that the finding of the trial court on issue No 1 was wholly erroneous According to the learned District Judge, it stood established from the evidence of PW 1 Munshiram. PW 2 Ramavtar, PW 3 Behari Lal, PW 4 Jwalasahai and PW 5 Brijlal that the accommodation with the plaintiff was not sufficient for the members of his family which expanded as a result of the marriages of his two sons and birth of grand children. PW 2 Ramavtar, PW 3 Behari Lal, PW 4 Jwalasahai and PW 5 Brijlal that the accommodation with the plaintiff was not sufficient for the members of his family which expanded as a result of the marriages of his two sons and birth of grand children. The learned District Judge further held that from the evidence produced by the plaintiff it was also proved that there were frequent quarrels between the plaintiffs two sons and their wives and there was no peace in the family It therefore became necessary for the plaintiff to separate one of his married sons and to keep him in the suit premises, along with his wife and children. It is argued before the learned District Judge that the urgency for the additional accommodation was reduced on the death of the plaintiff Munshiram. The learned District Judge repelled this argument on the ground that it was not necessary for the court to take note of the circumstances which had arisen after the appeal was filed. He accordingly reversed the findings on issue No 1 and held that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bonafide. He further held that the notice to quit served on the defendants was valid. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. As regards issue No. 2 relating to default in the payment of rent, it appears that the defendant tenants made payment and the issue became redundant. The defendants have now preferred this second appeal. 3 Shri S.K. Keshote, the learned advocate for the appellants contends that the right to sue on the basis of personal necessity did not survive to the heirs of the deceased-landlord Munshiram. He emphasised that the bona fide requirement of the premises for the residence of the plaintiff himself and his family members was the personal requirement of the landlord Munshiram and such a personal cause of action perished with the death of the landlord. Reliance is placed on the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Phoolrani vs. Sh. Naubatral Ahluwalia(l). In my opinion, the contention is devoid of force. Reliance is placed on the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Phoolrani vs. Sh. Naubatral Ahluwalia(l). In my opinion, the contention is devoid of force. Smt. Phoolranis case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the present case In that case, their lordships observed: "The Survival of the right to sue on the death solved on a permutation of several facts and cir-of a plaintiff is a problem that has often to be cumstances." Their lordships added— "The solution to the problem whether the appellants can continue the proceedings in their capacity as the legal representatives of the plan-tiff lies in the pleadings of the plaintiff for those alone can reveal the true nature of the right asser-ted by the plaintiff in the ejectment proceedings. In column 18(a) of the ejectment application the ground for evicting the tenant is stated thus"— "The premises are required bona fide by the petitioner for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family and that the petitioner has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation." In column 19,—The other relevant information is stated to be that the plaintiff had a large family consisting of his wife, son, daughter-in-law and three minor grand-daughters, and that the family had only two rooms in its possession, which were wholly inadequate for its requirements Thus the requirement pleaded in the ejectment application and on which the plaintiff has founded his right to relief is his requirement, or to use an expression which will effectively bring out the real point, his personal requirement. If the ejectment application succeeds—we will forget for a moment that the plaintiff is dead—the premises in the possession of the tenant may come to be occupied by the plaintiff and the members of his family but that does not make the requirement pleaded in the application any the less a personal requirement of the plaintiff. That the members of his family must reside with him is his requirement, not theirs. Such - personal cause of action must perish with the plaintiff." ( para 10 & 11 ) 4. That the members of his family must reside with him is his requirement, not theirs. Such - personal cause of action must perish with the plaintiff." ( para 10 & 11 ) 4. In the present case, the relevant allegations for eviction are contained in para 3(ka) of the plaint which runs as under— ^^¼d½ ;g fd eqn~bZ ds nks yM+ds jkevorkj oks y{ehukjk;.k gS budh kknh gks xbZ gS oks buds cPps Hkh gS eqn~bZ vius yM+dks lfgr ftl edku esa jg jgk gS vlesa lkjs ifjokj dh fjgk;k ds fy;s LFkku ifj;kIr ugh gS vkSj edku de gksus ds dkj.k cgqr raxh jgrh gS blds vukok jkevorkj o y{ehukj;.k dh vkSjrksa esa vkil esa >xM+s ckth jgrh gS blls nksus HkkbZ;ksa esa Hkh vucu jgrh gS vkSj >xM+s ckth gksus ds dkj.k gekjs lcds fnekx esa ijskkuh o vkkUrh jgrh gS bl dkj.k eqn~bZ vius ,d yM+ds dks mldh cgq cPpksa lfgr mDr fdjk;s kqnk tk;nkn esa vkckn djuk pkgrk gS blfy, tk;nkn eqruktk dh oknh dks usd oks tk;t t:jr gSA^^ It follows from the aforesaid para that the plaintiff Munshiram claimed eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on two-fold requirements. The first requirement which he pleaded was almost similar in terms to that pleaded in Smt. Phoolranis case (supra). But the second requirement pleaded by him, namely, the requirement for the residence of one of his two married sons in the interest of the peace of his family, cannot be said to be the personal requirement of the plaintiff Munshiram. It is a requirement of the family so that peace in the family be restored and such a cause of action, in my opinion, did not perish with the death of the plaintiff Munshiram. In this view of the matter, the legal representatives of the landlord Munshiram had the right to continue the suit for eviction against the defendants. It is obvious that the requirement that the suit premises are needed for the use of the family members in the circumstances of the case is both reasonable and bonafide. In this view of the matter, the legal representatives of the landlord Munshiram had the right to continue the suit for eviction against the defendants. It is obvious that the requirement that the suit premises are needed for the use of the family members in the circumstances of the case is both reasonable and bonafide. The learned District Judge has found proved from the evidence on the record that there were frequent quarrels between the plaintiffs two sons and their wives and there was no peace in the family and as a mult of these quarrels the plaintiff wanted to separate one of his married sons and to keep him in the suit premises. The right to sue survived even after the death of the plaintiff Munshiram so far as this part of the requirement pleaded in the plaint was concerned. The learned District Judge, in the circumstances, rightly decreed the suit. 5. Before parting with the case, I would like to mention that the view taken by the learned District Judge that subsequent events arising during the pendency of the appeal cannot be taken notice of in the case like the present one, is clearly erroneous in view of the authoritative pronouncement of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkatesaralu vs. The Motor & General Traders(2). In that case, their lordships held as under:— "We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceedings provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed." (para 4) 6. The appeal fails and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. The prayer for Leave to Appeal is refused.