N.G. Nandi, J.
(1) In this petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner (original respondent) has been challenging the legality of the decree in ejectment passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
(2) It has been contended by Mr.Anand, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act originally filed, the requirement for the minor daughter (present respondent) has not been averred and that the grounds of ejectment only suggested that the husband of the petitioner had to receive friends and associates from all over the country who come and stay with him and one guest room with the petitioner is not enough for this purpose and more accommodation was required; that the petitioner has a younger sister Smt.Prabha Sharma who has brought up and educated by the petitioner since she was six years old as the father of the petitioner died of Tuberculosis leaving behind small daughters; that said Smt.Prabha Sharma became widow after three years of her marriage and after the death of her husband, she has been dependent on the petitioner and has been living Along with her two sons; that both the sons of Smt.Prabha Sharma are dependent on the petitioner; that the family of the petitioner. thereforee, consists of her husband and an adopted daughter Som Surana, nine years of age (present respondent), widowed sister and her two sons; that after the death of the husband of the petitioner on 24.9.1980, the requirement of/for the husband of the petitioner ceased to exist; that the original petitioner died on 3.7.1993 and thereafter the present respondent was substituted as Lr of the deceased original petitioner; that the present respondent got married in 1989 and even during the period of four years i.e. from 25.11.1989 to 3.7.1993, there was no amendment in the pleading by the original petitioner seeking additional ground that the married daughter has to stay with the widowed mother (original petitioner) and that the demised premises are also required for the married daughter and her husband; that the requirement of the daughter after her marriage would cease to exist in absence of any pleading in the petition originally filed that the demised premises are also required for the daughter after 25.11.1989 till 3.7.1993; that with the death of the original petitioner and her husband, the requirement pleaded in the petition vanishes and that the requirement of the present respondent cannot be considered for the purpose of passing decree in ejectment under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the basis of the pleadings originally filed since according to the original petitioner, in her evidence, after the death of her husband, she wanted her another sister Mrs.Pratima Kaushik to live and look after her i.e. not the widowed sister Smt.Prabha Sharma.
(3) As against this, it is submitted by Mr.Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the respondent that all the requirements of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act are satisfied; that in the revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act, the court can only consider the legality in the impugned order, that the bonafide requirement is not the actio persona which would vanish with the death of the original petitioner but the right to sue would survive in the legal representative that respondent is the owner and her right had not vanished on her marriage; that by the amendment on 6.10.1993, the respondent has pleaded her requirement and the same has been granted vide order dated 7.4.1995; that there in no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment.
(4) In the case of P.V.Papanna & Others Vs . K.Padmanabhaiah, : [1994]1SCR642 , while dealing with a case under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act in respect of the non-residential premises, the Supreme Court held that 'the present need must exist not only on the date of filing eviction suit/petition but must also continue to exist during revision or appeal till passing decree or order is passed and the court will have regard to subsequent events such as death of the landlord during the pendency of the revision/appeal and mould the final decree or order accordingly.'
(5) In the case of Shanti Lal Thakordas and Others v. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala, reported in 1976 R.C.R. 829, while dealing with the case under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, over-ruling Phool Rani & Others Vs . Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, : [1973]3SCR679 , it is held that 'in the case of the landlord requiring premises for himself and members of his family on the death of the landlord during the pendency of the eviction proceedings against tenant, members of the family were held competent to continue the suit to eject tenant and that the requirement of family members does not cease with the death of the landlord.' At page 831, it is observed 'if the law permitted the eviction of the tenant for the requirement of the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family, then the requirement was both of the landlord and the members of his family. On his death, the right to sue did survive to the members of the family of the deceased landlord. We are unable to take the view that the requirement of the occupation of the members of the family of the original landlord was his requirement and ceased to be the requirement of the members of his family on his death. After the death of the original landlord, the senior member of the family takes his place and is well competent to continue the suit for eviction for his occupation and the occupation of the other members of the family.'
(6) It is suggested from the copy of the petition originally filed by the deceased petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act that adopted daughter was aged nine years and the member of the petitioner's family. Leaving aside the requirement for the husband, the younger sister of the deceased petitioner, the requirement of the present respondent who was aged nine years at the time of filing the petition as the member of the petitioner's family was very much pleaded in the petition originally filed. I am unable to agree with the submissions advanced by counsel for petitioner that on the marriage, the respondent being a daughter would cease to be the member of her parents' family. By the amendment granted vide order dated 7.4.1995, the L.R. of the deceased petitioner (present respondent) elaborated and gave details of her requirement since her husband and their daughter would be living as the member of the family and the requirement on account of the visits of her parents and in-laws.
(7) In view of the principle laid down in Shanti Lal Thakordas and Others v. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala (supra) and the powers of the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Act, I am of the view that in the present revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act, no question of law arises and, thereforee, no illegality or infirmity is suggested in the impugned order so as to call for any interference therin.
(8) In the result, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed with time to the respondent to vacate the demised premises till 20.5.1998 under Section 14(7) of the Act. The impugned decree shall not be executed till 20.5.1998.