Subsequent developments in eviction disputes may justify a limited remand on bona fide need and comparative hardship.

Subsequent developments that materially affect entitlement to relief in eviction proceedings may be considered even at the appellate stage, including changes bearing on bona fide need and comparative hardship. Where the existing findings are insufficient to assess those changed circumstances, the court should not order a broad remand if a narrower course will suffice. A limited remand confined to taking evidence on the later events was the proper procedural approach, especially where prolonged litigation would otherwise be caused. The broad remand was therefore set aside and the matter restored for a confined enquiry on the subsequent developments.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the appellate order and remanding the matter in full on the basis of subsequent developments, or whether a limited remand with retention of seisin was the proper course; and whether the subsequent events had a material bearing on the landlord's bona fide requirement and the comparative hardship of the parties.

Analysis: Subsequent developments of fact or law may be taken into account where they materially affect entitlement to relief or the moulding of relief, including at the appellate stage. The death of the original landlord's parents, the acquisition of additional accommodation, and the landlord's plea that his need had increased with the growth of his children were relevant matters requiring evidence. The existing findings were not sufficient for a final determination on those changed circumstances. At the same time, in view of the long pendency of the dispute, sending the matter back for a fresh decision from the beginning would prolong the litigation unnecessarily. The appropriate course was a limited remand so that evidence on the subsequent developments could be taken and then considered by the High Court.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have remanded the matter for a fresh decision in the broad manner adopted by it; a limited remand was required. The appellant succeeded to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The order of remand was set aside and the writ petition was restored with directions for a confined enquiry on the subsequent developments affecting bona fide need and comparative hardship.

Ratio Decidendi: Where subsequent developments materially affect the entitlement to relief in eviction proceedings, they may be considered even at the appellate stage, but the court should adopt the least disruptive procedural course and may confine the remand to the specific issues arising from those developments.

---