Judgment :- 1. This revision is filed by the legal representative of a deceased landlord who obtained an order for eviction against the tenant, the respondent herein O. P. (R.C.) No.17 of 1977, a proceeding under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1965, hereinafter called the Act. 2. The landlady, Lakshmi Amma, said to be the mother of the revision petitioner herein, filed an application against the respondent-tenant for evicting him from a building occupied by him on the ground that she bona fide requires the building for her own occupation. This was resisted by the tenant. 3. The Rent Control Court allowed eviction of the tenant under S.11(3) of the Act, as the landlord required the building for her own occupation for taking Ayurvedic treatment. An appeal was filed by the tenant in RCA. No 69 of 1978 against this order, which was dismissed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the appellate judgment, the tenant filed RCRP. No.23 of 1980 before the District Court, Tellicherry. As there was no stay obtained in the revision, during the pendency of the revision the landlord filed E. P. No.14 of 1980 seeking execution of the order for eviction. The landlady died on 2-4-1980, the day after the filing of the execution petition, E P. No. 41 of 1980, before the Muniff's Court. The revision was dismissed as abated. 4. The revision petitioner thereafter filed E. A. No. 91 of 1980 under 0.22 R.2 and S.151 CPC. for impleading himself as supplemental 2nd petitioner in his capacity as the legal representative of the deceased. This execution application was strongly opposed by the tenant, the respondent herein The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides dismissed the impleading petition on the ground that it was on the bona fide requirement of the landlady for her own occupation and not for any of the members of her family that the eviction order was passed under S.11(3) of the Act, that after the death of the landlord the right obtained by the landlord under the order has come to an end, and in view of the decision reported in Shantilai Thakordas v. Chimanlal Maganlal (AIR. 1976 S.C. 2358), the petitioner is not entitled to get himself in his capacity as legal representative of the landlord, who died in the case before executing the order obtained in O. P. (R. C.) No. 17 of 1977. 5. This order of the learned Munsiff was challenged by the petitioner before the District Court, Tellicherry, and the learned District Judge, after duly considering all the aspects and hearing both sides, dismissed the revision petition concurring with the findings of the Munsiff. 6. Assailing these orders, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order for eviction passed in the Rent Control proceedings against the respondent herein has become final long before the death of the landlady and therefore although the eviction was ordered on the ground of own occupation for the landlord, her legal representative is entitled to execute the order and the court below seriously erred in dismissing the petition for impleading filed by the revision petitioner. The counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Syed Assadulla v. Addl. District Judge, (AIR. 1981 S. C. 1724) in support of his contention. 7. Admittedly, it was for own occupation of the landlord, Lakshmi Amma, to undergo Ayurvedic treatment for her rheumatic complaint that she wanted the tenant to be evicted from the building in question. She had no case that she bona fide required the building for occupation for herself and other members of her family. It was for her personal need viz., for undergoing Ayurvedic treatment for rheumatic complaint that she wanted occupation of the building in question. At the time when she filed the execution petition, the revision petition filed by the tenant before the District Court was pending and the final order in the proceeding initiated by her under the Act is the order passed by the District Judge in revision. It was after her death that the revision was disposed of as abated. The decision reported in AIR. 1981 SC. 1724 does not apply to the facts of the present case. No right to sue survives in favour of the revision petitioner in this case as it was for the personal need of the landlord that she sought eviction of the tenant. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that courts below acted without jurisdiction or illegally. 1981 SC. 1724 does not apply to the facts of the present case. No right to sue survives in favour of the revision petitioner in this case as it was for the personal need of the landlord that she sought eviction of the tenant. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that courts below acted without jurisdiction or illegally. There is no ground made out for interference with the orders under attack. The revision petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs in the circumstances. Dismissed.