ORDER The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 1-9-2006 passed on LA. No. VI in H.R.C. No. 10060 of 2004 on the file of XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, presented the instant house rent revision petition. 2. The grievance made out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the petitioners herein have filed LA. No. VI on 27 -7 -2006 praying that the petition may be dismissed in respect of relief sought under Sections 30 and 31(1)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 by the deceased-landlord. The said application filed by the petitioners had come up for consideration before the Small Causes Court on 1-9-2006. The Small Causes Court on the basis of pleadings of both the parties has framed the necessary points for consideration.- "1. Whether the respondents made out a case to dismiss the petition in respect of Sections 30 and 31(1)(b) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999? 2. What order?" 3. The Small Causes Court after considering the material available on file and the stand taken by both the parties in respect of the relevant provisions of the Rent Act has answered point No. 1 in the negative and the application filed by the petitioners is dismissed. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order passed on LA. No. VI in H.R.C. No. 10060 of 2004 by the XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, the petitioners have presented the instant HRRP. 4. The principle submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, once the original landlord has died claiming the benefit of specific category under Sections 30 and 31(1)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the eviction petition along with other provisions fails after the demise of the landlord. The L.Rs of the deceased-landlord have not taken advantage or they are entitled to redress their grievance under Sections 30 and 31(1)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the Small Causes Court and placed the reliance in Smt. Lakshamma and Others v B.P. Thirumala Setty and Others 1 , wherein in paragraph 67 01 the said judgment, it is held as follows.- "Whenever a personal requirement being the cause of action pleaded by the landlord, with his death, said cause of action would perish". Therefore, he submits the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-landlord submits and substantiates the impugned order passed by the Court below and the observations made in paragraph 9 of the order of the Court below has rightly considered the contention urged in this regard and stated that the entitlement of the legal heirs of the deceased-landlord for eviction under Sections 30 and 31(1)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 can only be considered after the trial. The stand taken in the application is premature in nature. The said reason given by the Trial Court is in accordance with law. There is no error; irregularity and illegality nor the petitioners have made nut any case in the well-considered order passed by the Court below. 6. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents and after careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Small Causes Court on IA. No. VI in H.R.C. No. 10060 of 2004, dated 1-9-2006, which is manifest on the face of the pleadings, I do not find any error, irregularity and illegality for rejecting the application filed by the petitioners herein. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings of both the parties and after considering the points for consideration recorded in paragraph 9 of the order holding that the petition filed under Sections 5 and 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act and when such being the case at this stage the question of considering dismissal of the petition under Sections 30 and 31(1)(b) would not arise and it is premature in nature and the same is to be considered at the time of disposal of the suit. At this stage, dismissing the suit cannot be considered. The entitlement of the legal heirs of the deceased-landlord for eviction under the said provisions can only be considered after the trial. 7. I do not find any perversity and illegality as such and entitlement is not injustice for them. Regarding the reliance placed by the learned 20unsel appearing for both the parties and after careful perusal of paragraph 67 of the judgment in smt. 7. I do not find any perversity and illegality as such and entitlement is not injustice for them. Regarding the reliance placed by the learned 20unsel appearing for both the parties and after careful perusal of paragraph 67 of the judgment in smt. Lakshamma's case, it is crystal clear that the Division Bench of this Court has observed that 'In the event of subsequent event, disabling the legal representatives of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant the Revisional Court is bound to take note of subsequent events while disposing of the proceedings'. The Trial Court has rightly considered and observed that the said stand taken will be considered at the appropriate stage. The said reason given is just and reasonable in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in paragraph 67 supra. Therefore, the said submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has got no substance. Hence, liable to be rejected. 8. For the foregoing reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.