Subsequent partition decree in eviction litigation can defeat landlord's subsisting interest and requires fresh adjudication.

A subsequent partition decree produced in appeal was treated as a material event affecting the landlords' subsisting interest in the suit shop. Because eviction for personal requirement depends on a continuing legal entitlement to seek possession, the appellate court had to examine the altered title position before sustaining the decree. The same changed interest also required reconsideration of the default ground, since the landlords' competence to continue the eviction proceedings could not be assumed without first determining the effect of the partition decree. The matter therefore required fresh adjudication in light of the subsequent event and its impact on maintainability and entitlement to eviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenant could rely on a subsequent partition decree produced at the appellate stage to show that the landlords had lost their subsisting interest in the suit shop and, if so, whether the eviction decree on the ground of personal requirement and default could still stand.

Analysis: The subsequent partition decree, brought on record by an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was a material event arising during the pendency of the appeal. In proceedings under the rent law, the right to relief must be tested in the light of events occurring before the final adjudication, and the appellate court is entitled to take notice of such events where they fundamentally affect the claim for possession. The landlord seeking eviction on personal requirement must possess a subsisting legal interest in the premises; once the suit shop stood exclusively allotted to a third person, the original respondents could no longer claim eviction for their own occupation. The courts below erred in ignoring this subsequent event and in treating the landlords' choice of premises as unfettered despite the statutory controls imposed by the rent legislation.

Conclusion: The subsequent partition decree could not be ignored, and the eviction decree on the ground of personal requirement could not be sustained without first determining the effect of the altered title and interest.

Issue: Whether the finding on default in payment of rent could independently support the eviction decree after the subsequent change in title and interest.

Analysis: The decree for eviction had also been founded on alleged default in payment of rent, but the impact of the partition decree on the respondents' competence to maintain the action on that ground had not been examined by the courts below. If the suit shop had been exclusively transferred to a person not before the court, the respondents' continuing right to prosecute the eviction action, including on the ground of default, required examination in the light of the new title position. Since that issue went to the root of maintainability and had not been considered, a final pronouncement on the default ground without further inquiry would have been unsafe.

Conclusion: The default ground also required reconsideration after determining the effect of the partition decree on the respondents' right to continue the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The matter had to be reopened because the appellate courts failed to consider a decisive subsequent event affecting the landlords' entitlement to evict, and the case was therefore sent back for fresh adjudication on the relevant issues.

Ratio Decidendi: In eviction proceedings, an appellate court must take cognizance of a subsequent event that extinguishes the landlord's subsisting interest in the premises, because relief for personal requirement and related eviction grounds must be determined with reference to the legally effective rights existing at the stage of final adjudication.

---