Short Note : A decree for eviction was passed against appellant defendant on the ground of requirement of the son of landlord under section 12(1)(f). This decree was maintained in first appeal. During pendency of the second appeal, the respondent-landlord sold the suit accommodation to one Abdul Kadar. The appellant brought this fact to the notice of the High Court and prayed that Abdul Kadar may be joined as respondent. This prayer was allowed and notice was issued to Abdul Kadar. Held : At the time of hearing of this appeal, Shri Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the ground on which the decree for eviction was passed against the appellant was that the suit accommodation was required by respondent No. 1, Ali Hussain for starting the business of his son but as the suit accommodation was sold by respondent No. 1 Ali Hussain to respondent No.2 Abdul Kadar, the ground for eviction under section 12(1)(f) of the Act has ceased to exist. Shri Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.1, did not dispute the correctness of the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant and admitted that the suit accommodation has been sold by respondent Ali Hussain to respondent No.2. This admitted subsequent event has a bearing on the right of the plaintiff to seek eviction and as that right is no longer available to the plaintiff, the decree passed by the Courts below for eviction cannot now be sustained in law. Appeal allowed so far as eviction was concerned. Decree relating to arrears of rent confirmed.