Majeed also expired during the course of the appeal'. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the aforesaid findings and the consequential consideration of the appeal on such a mistaken impression is not proper or sustainable. It is further argued by the revision petitioners' counsel that the petition schedule building was required for the bona fide need of the landlord himself. In this connection, we have gone through the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In fact, the Rent Control Petition was filed by the fifth respondent/landlord seeking an order of eviction of the original tenant by invoking Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4) (v) of the Act. But the relief sought under Sections 11(4)(ii) and 11(4) (v) of the Act was declined. The order was passed on 24.07.2010. It is an admitted fact that the original tenant died during the pendency of the Rent Control Petition. Subsequently, the legal heirs were impleaded as supplemental respondents 2 to 6 as per order in I.A. Nos. 1523 and 1524 of 2009 dated 04.02.2010. Since respondents 5 and 6 were minors, they were represented by the guardian and the grand father, respondent No.2 therein. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed against supplemental respondents (the appellants herein). The legal heirs of the deceased original tenant, including his father as well as the petitioners herein, approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority by filing R.C.A. No. 59 of 2010. During the pendency of the appeal, the
