Subsequent events can defeat landlord's personal requirement claim, and reconstruction eviction must account for tenant re-entry rights.

In a landlord's eviction claim based on bona fide personal requirement, the court must consider subsequent events up to final appellate disposal, including acquisition of other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation by the landlord. On the facts stated, the landlord's later possession of a major portion of the same building defeated the requirement under section 12(1)(f), and the tenant could rely on the changed circumstances. A separate claim for eviction on the ground of reconstruction under section 12(1)(h) had to be examined independently, and any grant of eviction on that basis required consideration of the tenant's statutory right of re-entry under section 18. The eviction decree was therefore set aside and the reconstruction issue remanded for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a landlord's eviction action based on bona fide personal requirement, the court may take note of subsequent events showing that the landlord has acquired other reasonably suitable accommodation and thus no longer satisfies section 12(1)(f); (ii) Whether the landlord's separate claim for eviction on the ground of reconstruction and rebuilding under section 12(1)(h) could be sustained without examining the tenant's statutory right to re-entry under section 18.

Issue (i): Whether, in a landlord's eviction action based on bona fide personal requirement, the court may take note of subsequent events showing that the landlord has acquired other reasonably suitable accommodation and thus no longer satisfies section 12(1)(f).

Analysis: The landlord seeking eviction for starting a business had to establish not only bona fide requirement but also the absence of other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation in his occupation in the town. That requirement had to continue up to the final appellate decision. Where, during pendency of the appeal, it was shown that the landlord had obtained possession of the major portion of the same building, the court was bound to consider that subsequent event. The tenant was entitled to rely on the changed circumstances, and the High Court erred in refusing to permit amendment of the written statement and in ignoring the admitted acquisition of additional accommodation.

Conclusion: The eviction claim under section 12(1)(f) could not succeed, and the finding that the landlord lacked reasonably suitable alternative accommodation was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord's separate claim for eviction on the ground of reconstruction and rebuilding under section 12(1)(h) could be sustained without examining the tenant's statutory right to re-entry under section 18.

Analysis: Once the composite case of personal residence and business need was rejected, the reconstruction ground had to be examined independently. The landlord's entitlement on that ground depended on whether he genuinely required the tenant's premises for rebuilding and whether the work could not be carried out without vacating the accommodation. If eviction were ultimately granted on that footing, the court was required to consider the tenant's election and right to be placed back in occupation after reconstruction under section 18. As that aspect had not been examined by the courts below, the matter required further inquiry by the first appellate court.

Conclusion: The decree could not stand as it was, and the reconstruction issue was remanded for fresh decision together with the consequential section 18 question, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The tenant succeeded in overturning the existing eviction decree, while the landlord's reconstruction-based claim was left open for limited reconsideration on remand.

Ratio Decidendi: In a landlord's eviction proceeding based on personal requirement, the need must subsist until the final appellate determination, and courts may take cognisance of subsequent events that extinguish that need or reveal the availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation; where eviction on rebuilding is separately claimed, the tenant's statutory re-entry entitlement must also be examined.

---