JUDGMENT : 1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit which was between the landlord and tenant. The plaintiffs' suit for arrears of rent was held to be liable to be decreed by the first appellate Court. The plaintiffs' claim for arrears of rent was found to be correct by the first appellate Court, and as a consequence of the above finding normally a decree for Rs. 158 12 should have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. However, the first appellate Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the original plaintiff Tewari kanhaiyalal has died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives have not produced succession certificate 2. The legal representatives are wife of deceased Kanhaiyalal the sons and daughters of Arun Kumar who also died during the pendency of the appeal and who was son of Kanhaiyalal, and daughter's daughters of Vijay Laxmi who also expired and so also son of Gokul Kumari who is daughter of Kanhaiyalal who also expired. 3. Shri J.K. Singhi learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that according to the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Beharilal v. Wasundhara Bai, AIR 1956 MB 35 , the arrears of rent and mesne profits are not included in the word, 'debt' as used in Section 214 of the Succession Act, and, therefore, there was no necessity of submission of succession certificate. Para 6 reads as under : "The third contention raised by the appellant is that the plaintiff cannot obtain a decree without obtaining succession certificate. The learned counsel for the appellant referred me to Section 214, Succession Act, which corresponds to Section 4, Indore Succession Certificate Act lays down that no Court shall pass a decree against the debtor for payment o his debt to a person claiming to be entitled to the effects of the deceased or to any part thereof....... except on the production by the person so claiming of a succession certificate." "..... The word, 'Debt' as such in Section 214 does not include arrears of rent or mense profits. except on the production by the person so claiming of a succession certificate." "..... The word, 'Debt' as such in Section 214 does not include arrears of rent or mense profits. This section does not preclude suits for ejectment, it only bars suits to recover debts owed to the deceased." Apart from the above decision of Madhya Bharat High Court, Shri J.K. Singhi has also invited my attention to the judgment of Rajasthan Court in Ganeshmal v. Anand Kanwar and others, AIR 1968 Raj. 273 in which the Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "9. Before we conclude, we think it proper to make it clear that we express no opinion as to whether a succession certificate would be necessary in case a person wants to proceed with the execution application of a deceased decree-holder as a surviving coparcener under the Hindu Law." 4. No one has appeared to oppose the appeal. The first appellate Court did not grant the decree on the ground that the succession certificate was not produced. 5. In view of the above decisions, since legal representatives of the deceased were his wife, sons, daughters, grand-daughters and grand-sons, and the claim was in respect of the rent, there was no such requirement of production of succession certificate for the purpose of obtaining the decree. 6. The first appellate Court has already held that the defendant is defaulter and the finding is justified in as much as the rent has not been paid after 21.3.1965 and it was due for more than 6 months. In fact, the rent was due from 21.3.1965 to 20.4.1967 to 21.8.1967. 7. So far as the question of notice is concerned, after the judgment of the Apex Court in V. Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesodai ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1746 in cases where the Rajasthan Rent Control legislation is applicable and the eviction is sought on the ground mentioned in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, no notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is necessary. 8. Consequently, since the defendant was defaulter, and in spite of the provisions of taking benefit by deposit, has not deposited the rent and has not availed of those provisions, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be decreed both for eviction and rent. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed. 8. Consequently, since the defendant was defaulter, and in spite of the provisions of taking benefit by deposit, has not deposited the rent and has not availed of those provisions, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be decreed both for eviction and rent. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and trial Court are set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs is decree for eviction of the premises in dispute in addition to the arrears of rent, house tax of Rs. 7312 and mesne profits which are Rs. 1958.12 upto 21.8.1967 and further mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month from that date upto the date of eviction. 10. Since no one has appeared for the defendant-respondent, the parties would bear their own costs, throughout.