JUDGMENT 1. The present revision is arising out of the order 03.12.2019 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 2. Undisputedly, the facts of the case reveal that the applicant before Rent Controlling Authority a widow being a special class of landlord under the provisions of Accommodation and Control Act, 1961 has filed an application for eviction of the tenant. 3. During the pendency of the case, the widow expired and an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissing the case as the widow was no more. The Rent Controlling Authority dismissed the application. 4. The issue involved in the matter is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Leelawatibai (deceased) through L.Rs. Mahendra Kumar and others Vs. Radhakishan (deceased) through L.Rs Smt.Sajjanbai and others reported in 2011 (1) MPLJ 636 in paragraphs 16 to 19 and 29 to 30 has held has under:- (16.) It is true that Leelawatibai alone was landlord falling under the specified category. This being so, she was well competent to submit an application for eviction on the ground under section 23-A (a) of the Act. It has not been disputed by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the application for eviction during the lifetime of Leelawatibai could not have been legally dismissed merely on account of inclusion of her sons as applicants No. 2 to 7. The question before us would be that whether the death of landlord falling under the specified category would make the application for eviction incompetent. (17.) Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the following passage of the Apex Court decision in the case of Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs. Nageshwara Rao, AIR 1956 SC 213 : " The validity of a petition must be judged on the facts as they were at the time of its presentation, and a petition which was valid when presented cannot, in the absence of a provision to that effect in the statute, cease to be maintainable by reason of events subsequent to its presentation. " (18.) Shri A. S. Kutumbale, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has been unable to point out any specific provision which would make the application for eviction of present nature (projecting need of landlord of the specified category as well as members of his family) nonmaintainable by reason of death of such landlord. (19.) In view of this we hold that the application for eviction filed by the landlord of specified category for the bona fide residential need of himself or his family members will not abate on his death during the pendency of application for eviction before the Court of Rent Controlling Authority and his legal representatives shall have right to pursue the proceedings for eviction under Chapter III-A of the Act. 29. In the result, we answer the reference in the following manner: (1) In an application for eviction by landlord of specified category under Section 23-J of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act based on the bona fide requirement of the landlord himself and any other person permitted under Clause (a) or (b) of Section 23-A of the Act, the death of landlord will not result into abatement of the proceedings and legal heirs substituted in place of the landlord may continue the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority; (2) In case of death of landlord during the pendency of the application for eviction under Chapter III-A based on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord alone, it would come to an end on death of the landlord and substitution of the legal heirs may not be permitted, because the cause of action, as pleaded in the application would come to an end with the death of the landlord. (3) If the death of the landlord takes place after the eviction order is passed in his favour, the legal representatives of the landlord nevertheless may continue the revisional proceedings to defend the order of eviction. 30.We may further observe here that the Single Bench decisions of this Court contrary to the aforesaid are not good law and are not binding. The order of reference may be placed before the learned Single Judge for deciding the civil revision against the order of Rent Controlling Authority, on merits in accordance with law. 30.We may further observe here that the Single Bench decisions of this Court contrary to the aforesaid are not good law and are not binding. The order of reference may be placed before the learned Single Judge for deciding the civil revision against the order of Rent Controlling Authority, on merits in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have merely decided the question of reference and learned Single Judge while deciding the civil revision is well empowered to appreciate the findings with regard to the existence of ground for eviction under Clause (a) of Section 23-A of the Act. No order as to costs." 5. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench delivered by this Court wherein it has been held that the legal representatives of the land lord have a right to pursue the proceedings for eviction under Chapter III-A of the Act of 1961. The Rent Controlling Authority was justified in rejecting the application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 6. Resultantly, the admission is declined. C.C.as per rules.