Eviction on reasonable requirement and alleged tenant alteration failed where the pleaded need and proof of encroachment were insufficient.

A substituted landlord cannot enlarge an eviction case based on reasonable requirement by introducing a grandson's need when the original plaint pleaded only the plaintiff's and his wife's requirement; subsequent events matter only if they relate to the pleaded foundation, so the requirement ground failed. Alleged breach of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act also requires reliable proof of encroachment or unlawful construction. Where the commissioner's report was uncertain, not properly recorded in the field note, and did not directly address the alleged wall, the tenant's version was not displaced and the breach was not established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement could survive after the death of the original plaintiff and his wife, when the substituted claimant sought to rely on the need of a grandson not pleaded in the original suit; (ii) Whether the decree for eviction on the ground of breach of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act was sustainable on the evidence of alleged encroachment and construction.

Issue (i): Whether the decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement could survive after the death of the original plaintiff and his wife, when the substituted claimant sought to rely on the need of a grandson not pleaded in the original suit.

Analysis: The original pleading confined the requirement to the plaintiff and his wife. After their death, the substituted claimant could not enlarge the basis of eviction by introducing a new need of the grandson, because the appellate court may consider subsequent events only when they relate to the original claim. The later claim was not an added requirement on the same foundation, but a wholly new cause of action not pleaded in the suit.

Conclusion: The decree on the ground of reasonable requirement could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the decree for eviction on the ground of breach of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act was sustainable on the evidence of alleged encroachment and construction.

Analysis: The finding of illegal addition and alteration rested mainly on the commissioner's report, but the commissioner admitted that the alleged new wall and related observations were not recorded in the field note and that he had not been specifically asked to report on that aspect. The tenant's tenancy version was also not effectively displaced by reliable evidence. On that material, the alleged encroachment or deprivation of common amenities was not proved.

Conclusion: The decree on the ground of breach of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The eviction decree could not stand on either of the grounds upheld by the trial court, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Subsequent events can defeat a decree for reasonable requirement only when they bear upon the original pleaded need, and an eviction finding for breach of tenant's obligations must rest on reliable evidence proving the alleged alteration or encroachment.

---