Honble YADAV, J. – List is revised. (2). Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S.K. Sharma is present but no one is present on behalf of the respondent, therefore, the Court has no alternative except to proceed ex parte against the respondent as envisaged under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order 41, CPC. (3). Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S.K. Sharma at length. (4). Perused the judgments and decree under appeal. (5). It is borne out from the record that the suit for eviction was filed by landlord Panna Lal as envisaged under Clause (h) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. 17 of 1950) on the ground of his personal bonafide and reasonable necessity. (6). It is further borne out from the record that the suit for eviction on the ground of personal use and occupation of the landlord was decreed by the learned trial court on 8.2.79. Aggrieved against the decree passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-tenant which was allowed by the learned appellate court on 30.9.81 and decree passed by the learned trial court was set aside. (7). Against judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate court 30.9.81, the present second appeal was filed by the plaintiff-landlord Panna Lal who expired during the pendency of the present second appeal and deceased is being represented by his heirs and legal representatives No. 1/1 to 1/4. (8). It goes without saying that in view of the mandatory provisions envisaged under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950 to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree or make any order in favour of a landlord whether in execution of a decree or otherwise evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act unless it is satisfied on any of the grounds enumerated under Clause (a) to (1) of the aforesaid Section. It is true that in the present case, the suit for eviction was decreed on the ground of personal reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord Panna Lal by the learned trial court but appeal was allowed by the learned lower appellate court and suit for eviction was dismissed. (9). It is to be imbibed that any one or more than one ground/grounds enumerated under Clause (a) to (1) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of the said Act must exist on the date of filing of the civil suit and required to continue to exist upto second appeal. Reason is not far to seek as appeals are continuation of suits. If during pendency of the second appeal any one or more than one grounds on the basis of which decree for eviction was sought under Sec. 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950 ceased to exist in such cases, suits or appeals are liable to be dismissed. (10). In view of what has been discussed above, the instant second appeal is liable to be dismissed without making any comments on merits of the findings recorded by both the courts- below after death of land lord plaintiff Panna Lal. (11). Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S.K. Sharma invited my attention towards the application moved by him under O. 41 R. 27, CPC. In view of the discu- ssion made in the preceding paragraphs, the present application is hereby rejected. Consequently, the present second appeal is dismissed and decree under appeal is maintained. Costs easy. _