Judgment :- This revision petition is filed challenging the fair and decretal orders dated 31.3.1997 in R.C.A.No.1056 of 1993 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras confirming the eviction order dated 30.7.1993 passed by the Rent Controller (X Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras in R.C.O.P.No.3002 of 1989. 2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and respondents 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased landlord, first respondent herein, who died pending the revision petition. The second respondent is the father of the deceased first respondent who joined with his son in filing the eviction petition against the tenant. 3. The first respondent/landlord (since deceased) filed the petition against the revision petitioner/tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) on the ground that since he is an Advocate practicing in the High Court, Small Causes Court and other Courts in Chennai, he requires the petition building bona fide for his occupation for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate and that since he was hitherto practicing along M/s.M.Shakir Ali and N.Isthiaq Ahmed, Advocates, 107, Law Chambers, High Court premises, Madras, he has to set up his office in the petition premises and that therefore the respondents have to be evicted from the demised premises. 4. Both the Courts below agreed with such contention on the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced on either side and upon hearing the arguments put forth by both the counsel and ordered eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. Hence, the revision. 5. The factual aspect of the matter that the deceased first respondent herein was practicing as an Advocate in Madras High Court, City Civil Court and Small Causes Court till his death during the pendency of this revision petition is not in controversy. Similarly, the fact that the second respondent herein, father of the deceased first respondent, joined with him in filing the eviction petition by way of abundant caution in order to avoid any technical objection that may be raised in future is also not in dispute. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the deceased first respondent did not own any other non-residential building except the petition building in Channai is not challenged in this revision. 6. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the deceased first respondent did not own any other non-residential building except the petition building in Channai is not challenged in this revision. 6. The only point that has arisen for consideration in view of the subsequent event, i.e., death of the first respondent is whether the respondents 2 to 5, legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the benefit of the impugned order of eviction passed by the Courts below. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court rendered by S.S. SUBRAMANI, J. (as he then was) in 1996-2-L.W. 320 (RAMADOSS.K. v. I.S. VAIDYANATHASAMY AND ANOTHER) in support of his contention that the respondents 3 to 5, who are the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent, are entitled to the benefit of order of eviction passed by the Courts below. He has also cited the decision J.T. 1994 (1) S.C. 371 (P.V. PAPANNA AND OTHERS v. K. PADMANABHAIAH) in support of his contention that the requirement must continue to exist till the eviction proceeding is finally disposed of. 8. It is no doubt true that the subsequent events as in this case have to be taken into consideration to decide the question as to whether the bona fide requirement of the landlord is still subsisting even after his death and if so, whether the benefit of an order of eviction enures in favour of the legal representatives. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1988 (1) S.C.C. 198 (GOVIND v. DR.JEETSINGH) to fortify his contention that since the ground of personal requirement of the building by the deceased first respondent, to carry on his profession as an Advocate is no longer available to his legal representatives, the respondents 3 to 5 herein. 9. In view of the rival contentions of both the counsel with reference to the above decisions, it has become necessary to consider whether the bona fide requirement of the premises by the deceased first respondent herein who was a practicing Advocate can be considered as a valid ground to sustain the order of eviction passed by the Courts below in favour of his legal representatives, the respondents 3 to 5 herein. 10. 10. In this context, it is necessary to extract the provision under Section 27 of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 as under:- "27. Proceedings by or against legal representatives-- (1) Any applications made, appeal preferred, or proceeding taken, under this Act by or against any person, may in the event of his death, be continued by or against his legal representatives. (2) Where any application, appeal or other proceeding could have been made, preferred or taken, under this Act by or against any person, such application, appeal or other proceeding may, in the event of his death, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives." 11. In view of the factual position of the case decided in 1996 (2) L.W.320 (RAMADOSS.K. v. I.S. VAIDYANATHASAMY AND ANOTHER), it is evident that son of the deceased landlord in that case, who was associated with his father in running the hotel business was entitled to continue the same business and also to urge the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for carrying on the business. It is needless to elaborate on this aspect of the matter for the simple reason that the bona fide requirement urged by both the deceased father and son was one and the same. 12. Therefore in that case, it was held with reference to the principle laid down in 1990 (2) S.C.C. 431 (POKHRAJ JAIN v. PADMA KASHYAP AND ANOTHER) in paragraphs 12 and 13 as follows:- "Maxim of actio personalis mortur cum persona cannot apply, either, on principle or on facts. In OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, SUPREME BANK LTD v. P.A. TENDOLKAR, this Court while discussing applicability of the maxim held, "whatever view one may take of the justice of the principle it was clear that it would not be applicable to actions based on contract or where tortfeasors' estate had benefitted from a wrong done." 13. Thus, it was held there as follows:- "The benefit of eviction enures to the benefit of the estate and the requirement of the landlord continues even after his death." 14. Thus, it was held there as follows:- "The benefit of eviction enures to the benefit of the estate and the requirement of the landlord continues even after his death." 14. On the contrary, the facts of the case adumbrated in 1988 (1) S.C.C. 198 (GOVIND v. DR.JEETSINGH) disclose that since pending Second Appeal before the High Court, the wife of the landlord died inasmuch as three rooms which were in her occupation became vacant, it was held by the Hon'ble supreme Court that in view of the subsequent event of death of the landlord's wife leaving three rooms vacant, there was no more bona fide need of the landlord to evict the tenant of the premises in question. 15. Hence, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case also in view of the subsequent event of death of the landlord, the bona fide requirement of the first respondent being an Advocate cannot be taken as a ground to sustain the order of eviction by his legal representatives especially when none of them is a practicing lawyer. The learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that none of the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent continues his profession as an Advocate and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In that event under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, the proceedings initiated by the first respondent, deceased landlord cannot be continued by his legal representatives, the respondents 3 to 5 herein for the simple reason that the requirement of the landlord does not continue after his death. 16. In view of the position of law, as adjudicated in the said decision and having regard to the factual aspect of the matter in this case, this Court is of the considered view that the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises available to the deceased first respondent under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 is no longer available to the respondents 3 to 5 as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent in whose favour the order of eviction was passed by the Courts below. It follows necessarily that the revision petitioner/tenant is not liable to be evicted from the petition premises and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition has to be allowed. 17. Thus, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the fair and decretal orders of both the Courts below. However, there will be no order as to costs.