M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel. Revision petition is admitted. This revision petition has been filed by the landlady challenging the order dated 28-8-1992 passed in HRC No. 2553 of 1988 on the file of the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the landlady's petition for eviction of the tenant filed under clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent control Act. ( 2 ) IN this revision petition, the learned Counsel who was appearing for the present respondent-tenant has reported that his client died on 8-2-1995. He has filed a memo to that effect. ( 3 ) THE Counsel for the revision petitioner-landlady has filed a memo in this Court on 11-10-1995 stating that the revision petitioner made inquiries and she learnt that the respondent-tenant had not left behind him any legal heir. ( 4 ) THE tenant in his evidence given on 5-3-1991 has stated that his family consists of three members i. e. , his wife, mother and himself. ( 5 ) IN the memo filed by the revision petitioner-landlady, adverted to above, while stating that the tenant has not left behind him any heir, has stated that the tenant's (respondent's) wife and mother referred to by him in his evidence predeceased him. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel who was appearing for the respondent-tenant and who is present today submits that nobody approached him after the death of the tenant. He has not furnished the address of anybody as the heir or heirs of the deceased tenant. ( 7 ) FROM the facts stated above, it is obvious that the respondent died without leaving behind any legal heir. ( 8 ) NOW what is the procedure to be followed? There is no provision in the rules under the Karnataka Rent Control Act as to what should be done if a party dies without leaving behind any heir. ( 9 ) RULE 35 of the Karnataka Rent Control Rules says that in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided for under the Karnataka Rent Control Rules, 1961 the court shall as far as possible be guided by the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code. So we have to fall back upon the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. So we have to fall back upon the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 10 ) ORDER 22, Rule 4-A (1) insofar as it is relevant for our present purpose, says:"if, in any suit, it shall appear to the Court that any party who has died during the pendency of the suit has no legal representative, the Court may, on the application of any party to the suit, proceed in the absence of a person representing the estate of the deceased person. . . . . and any judgment or order subsequently given or made in the suit shall bind the estate of the deceased person to the same extent as he would have been bound if a personal representative of the deceased person had been a party to the suit". In the instant case there is no scope, bearing in mind that the deceased was only a tenant, to comply with Order 22, Rule 4-A sub-clause (2), in view of the submission that has been made by the learned Counsel for the tenant and the memo dated 11-10-1995 filed on behalf of the revision petitioner-landlady. ( 11 ) THERE is no body representing the deceased tenant. Karnataka Rent Control Act laws are silent as to what should be done when the tenant dies without leaving behind any heir. In the circumstances the order cannot be allowed to stand whether the revision petitioner-landlady has made out the ground under clause (h) of Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act or not. ( 12 ) I am of opinion that equity has to step in. "if the lawshould be in danger of doing injustice, then equity should be called in to remedy it. Equity was introduced to mitigate the rigour of the law, Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2), (1974)1 Ch. 269 at 322 says Lord Denning M. R. Further, it is well established that in HRC proceedings subsequent events should be taken note of. ( 13 ) THE eviction petition was filed by the revision petitioner-landlady praying that the tenant should be evicted from the petition garage portion because she wanted it for her use and occupation to park her car since she had secured possession of the residential portion attached to the petition schedule garage. ( 13 ) THE eviction petition was filed by the revision petitioner-landlady praying that the tenant should be evicted from the petition garage portion because she wanted it for her use and occupation to park her car since she had secured possession of the residential portion attached to the petition schedule garage. ( 14 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:order the impugned order dated 28-8-1992 dismissing the eviction petition filed under clause (h) of Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka rent Control Act is set aside. Eviction petition stands allowed on the ground under clause (h) of Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka rent Control Act. The revision petitioner is entitled to take possession of the petition schedule premises by executing this eviction order. Revision petition is allowed accordingly. --- *** --- .