Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the court could take account of events arising after institution of the eviction proceedings and whether the relief granted by the High Court could be interfered with.
Analysis: The right to relief is judged at the date of institution, but if supervening facts materially affect that right and are brought to the court's notice, the court may and, where justice requires, must take cautious cognisance of them while moulding relief, provided fairness to both sides is maintained. The power is not confined to the trial court and extends to appellate and revisional proceedings, since an appeal is in the nature of a rehearing. The landlord's later acquisition of another non-residential accommodation directly affected the statutory requirement under Section 10(3)(iii), and the High Court was entitled to consider that development.
Conclusion: The court upheld the consideration of subsequent events, but modified the ultimate relief by partly allowing the appeal and limiting the scope of further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: In appellate or revisional proceedings, a court may take into account supervening facts that materially affect the right to relief and may mould the relief accordingly, so long as procedural fairness is preserved.