A. N. Ray ( 1 ) [appellant s father owned suit promises. He, an appellant and 2 outsiders were paitners in a firm. He sued tenant tor eviction on many grounds including one for requirement of the firm. Trial Court allowed partial eviction. 1st appeal was rejected. In revision, High Court remanded the case and directed 1st appellate court to find out if legal heirs required premises as owner had died when 1st appeal was pending. Again partial eviction was ordered. In revision. High Court followed Phool Ram Vs. Naubat Rai 1973. 3. SCR. 679=1973. Rajdhani L. R. 319 and dismissed eviction case. The appellant questioned the correctness of decision in Phool Rani s case. The court over-ruled it but did not grant relief to appellants as after death of their father, the firm was re-constituted and appellant no. 3 was not a partner in that. ] Paras 3 to 5 of the judgement are. ( 2 ) THE foremost and the first question urged before us by Mr. Dholakia was that Phool Rani s case was not correctly decided. We agree with this contention and say with respect that we do not subscribe to the view expressed by the Bench of this Court in that case. The original plaintiff in that case had filed the application for eviction under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The application was dismissed in the first instance by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground that the notices to quit were not valid. Plaintiff filed. an appeal but died during its pendency. His widow, son and two married daughters and two children of a deceased daughter were, allowed to be substituted by the Rent Control Tribunal where the appeal was pending. The case was remanded by the Tribunal and after remand the Additional Rent Controller held that some of the substituted persons require the premises bonafide for their occupation. The tenant s appeal to the Tribunal failed. The High Court of Delhi on a further appeal by the tenant took the view that the right to sue did not survive to the heirs of the plaintiff and on that ground it dismissed the ejectment application. The case came up to this Court. The view of the High Court was affirmed. The High Court of Delhi on a further appeal by the tenant took the view that the right to sue did not survive to the heirs of the plaintiff and on that ground it dismissed the ejectment application. The case came up to this Court. The view of the High Court was affirmed. The relevant words of personal requirement of the premises in section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Act are : "for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family. " The original plaintiff had pleaded : "the premises are required bonafide by the petitioner for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family and that the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation," ( 3 ) THIS Court took the view : "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 and the less at personal requirement of the plaintiff. That the members of his family must reside with him, is his requirement, not theirs. Such a personal cause of section must perish with the plaintiff. " ( 4 ) IN our considered opinion in face of the wordings of section 14 (1 ) (e) of the Delhi Act, the view expressed in Phool Rani s case, as stated above, is not correct. If the law permitted the eviction of the tenant for the requirement of the landlord "for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family", then the requirement was both of the landlord and the members of his family. On his death the right to sue did survive to the members of the family of the deceased landlord. We are unable to (?) that the requirement of the occupation of the members of the family of the original landlord was his requirement and ceased to be the requirement of the members of his family on his death. On his death the right to sue did survive to the members of the family of the deceased landlord. We are unable to (?) that the requirement of the occupation of the members of the family of the original landlord was his requirement and ceased to be the requirement of the members of his family on his death. After the death of the landlord th3 senior member of his family takes his place and is well competent to continue the suit for eviction for his occupation and the occupation of the other members of the family. Many of the substituted heirs of the deceased landlord were undoubtedly the members of his family and the two married daughters and the children of a deceased daughter in the circumstances could not be held to be not members of the family of the deceased landlord.