predecessor in title provided they are qualified in all respects to file a petition under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, while the position of law is such, giving the interpretation for the terms “Owner's occupation” in its narrow sense that it means only the petitioner and none-else so as to conclude that on the death of the petitioner/landlord, the right being his personal right, there is no question of impleading the legal representatives of the deceased owner under Sec.27 of the Act, cannot sustain nor is it acceptable. On the other hand, the terms “owner's occupation” should be given its wider meaning thereby making it clear that it is not the owner who is individually meant but the occupation is for himself and for his other dependants who might also be his legal representatives after his death. Therefore, the correct way of interpreting the term “ landlord” in seeking the residential building for his own occupation, includes his legal representative also and hence, under pretext that it is his personal right that is involved, it is false to conclude that on his death, the same becomes either extinguished without being made available for his legal representatives or become non est in law as it is argued on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only conclusion that could be arrived at is that the legal representatives of the deceased landlord in case of the landlord filing a petition under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act seeking the premises for “owner's occupation” could well maintain the petition under Sec.27 of the Act to continue the proceeding provided they have the same qualification of the deceased landlord so as to seek for the relief under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act.”
