JUDGMENT 1. - This is one of those unfortunate cases. in which a suit for rent and eviction regarding a shop was filed in the vear I9' which was decreed by the trial court in the year 1978, and by the first appellate court in the year 1980, but the respondent land lord expired in May, 1986 during the pendency of the civil second appeal in this court, which was filed in the year 1980. So even though his bonafide necessity was proved in two courts, still the civil second appeal could not be decided during his life-time. 2. An application under 0.22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code was filed by the tenant-appellant on June 10, 1986 for joining the legal representatives and also praying that since the suit shop was required for deceased Munnalal, land-lord, no cause of action survives any more on account of his death. In reply to the above application filed on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Munna Lal, it is contended that two of his sons Mahesh and Anir also carried on the same business of watch repair in the rented work-shop alongwith their deceased father. Therefore, they are entitled to continue the suit an get the shop vacated. 3. Even though the court has all sympathies with the deceased land-lord who fought a long drawn out legal battle to get his shop vacated for his reason. able personal bonafide need of running the shop of watch repairs, still the sympathy cannot take place of law. 4. I have gone through the pleadings, issued and judgments of both the courts below In para 2 of the plaint, there is specific pleading made by deceased Munnalal that he requires the shop for his own self to sit and do the business of repairing of w itches, which he was at that time carrying on in the rented shop along with another person Issue No. 1 was also framed only pointing to the specific necessity of deceased Munnalal. In both the judgments, his specific bonalidc need was upheld and thereafter, the present appeal was filed by the tenant appellant. 5. With the death of deceased Munnalal the cause of action regarding personal bonafide need of deceased Munna Lal has come to an end. In both the judgments, his specific bonalidc need was upheld and thereafter, the present appeal was filed by the tenant appellant. 5. With the death of deceased Munnalal the cause of action regarding personal bonafide need of deceased Munna Lal has come to an end. There is no evidence nor any pleading wherein it may have been shown that his above named two sons were also doing the same business along with him. I am, therefore, of the opinion that on account of death of deceased Munna Lal, the cause of action does not survive any more and the suit filed by the respondents is therefore, liable to be dismissed. However, the legal representatives of deceased Munnalal shall be at liberty to file any fresh suit on any fresh cause of action regarding the same shop. 6. Before parting with this appeal, it will be in the interest of justice to state that if any of the legal representatives files any fresh suit on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the shop, the same shall be decided expeditiously on merits and on priority basis to compensate for the extreme delays of law of which this appeal is a glaring example. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the suit is dismissed as having become infructuous,Appeal allowed. *******