JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the Munsiff, Ratangarh, dated September 25, 1972 in Civil Suit No. 239 of 1971. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are follows. 3. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction in respect of s shop situated in Surajangarh against deceased Juharmal. They sought eviction of the defendant Juharmal on two grounds. Firstly, that the defendants failed to pay rent for a period of more than six months; and secondly, that the plaintiffs required the suit shop reasonably and bonafide for their personal use. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement on October 27, 1969. Juharmal expired on December 1, 1970 during the pendency of the suit. On the death of the defendant Juharmal, his legal representatives were brought on record and they are non-petitioners before me. They filed written statement and pleaded that the shop was let-out not to Juharmal, but to his father Jodhraj and the business which was carried on in the shop was a joint family business. The plaintiffs then moved an application on March 28, 1972 for striking out the defence inasmuch as the tenancy did not devolve on the legal representatives of Juharmal after his death. 4. The learned Munsiff dismissed this application holding that the point raised in this application is not a new one, but was only raised by Juharmal in his written statement. It is against this order at this revision petition has been filed. 5. During the pendency of this revision petition, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was amended by Ordinance No. 26 of 1975. The Ordinance was later on adopted by the State Legislature Vide Act No. 14 of 1976. As per the new Amendment, the definition of "tenant" has been altered as given in the original Act. After the amendment, the definition of the "tenant" runs as under:- "3. The Ordinance was later on adopted by the State Legislature Vide Act No. 14 of 1976. As per the new Amendment, the definition of "tenant" has been altered as given in the original Act. After the amendment, the definition of the "tenant" runs as under:- "3. (vii) tenant means:- (a) the personality whom or whose account or behalf rent is or, but for a contract express or implied would be payable for any premises to his landlord including the person who is continuing in its possession after the termination of his tenancy otherwise than by a decree for eviction passed under the provisions of this Act, and (b) in the event of death of the person as is referred to in sub-clause (a), his surviving spouses, or daughter and other heir in accordance with the personal law applicable to his who had been, in the case of premises leased out for a residential purposes, ordinarily residing and in the cases of premises leased out for commercial purposes, ordinarily carrying on business with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death. The above definition of "tenant" clearly provides that the tenancy means that in the event of death of the tenant, his surviving spouse, son, daughter and other heir, who had been in the case of premises leased out for residential purposes ordinarily resided with him and in the case of premises leased out for commercial, or business purposes, were ordinarily carrying on business with him in such premises, as member of his family up to his death. In the present case, the premises were admittedly let out to Juharmal and on his death, the tenancy right would devolve on his heirs if they were ordinarily carrying on business with him in suit premises as member of his family up to his death. In the present case, the premises were admittedly let out to Juharmal and on his death, the tenancy right would devolve on his heirs if they were ordinarily carrying on business with him in suit premises as member of his family up to his death. The amending Act of 1976 has added new clause (d) in Section 13-A, which runs as under:- "(d) No Court shall in any pending on the commencement of the amending Ordinance pass any decree in favour of a landlord for eviction solely on the ground that due to death of the tenant, as definition in clause (vii) of Section 3 as stood before the commencement of the amending Ordinance, his surviving spouse, son, daughter and other heir as are referred to in sub-clause (b) of sub-eviction (vii) of Section 3 were not entitled to protection against eviction in this Act as it stood before the commencement of the Amending Ordinance." Clause (d) of Section 13-A further gives protection of the heir of the tenant. As per the section, no Court shall pass any decree after the passing of the Amending Ordinance in favour of a landlord for eviction solely on the ground that the tenant, to whom a premises were let out, had died. 6. In view of the amendment of the Act, the Court will have to frame issue whether the heir of deceased Juharmal were carrying on business in the suit premises jointly with him as members of the family up to the time of his death. 7. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition has become infructuous on account of the amendment of the Act during the pendency of the revision petition. 8. The Court below shall now frame as issue as indicated above and dispose of the case in accordance with the law. 9. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. *******