Court dismisses appeal challenging eviction notice, grants interim relief, stresses importance of disclosing subsequent events.

The defendant's appeal contesting the validity of the notice of ejectment was dismissed by the courts, upholding the plaintiff's right to eviction and arrears recovery. The impact of subsequent events, including proceedings initiated by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, led to the appellant being granted interim relief by the Supreme Court. The appellant's argument regarding the doctrine of eviction by title paramount was rejected as the necessary conditions were not met. The Court emphasized the importance of properly bringing subsequent events to its attention in civil litigation. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, granting the appellant three months to vacate the premises upon fulfilling specified conditions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice of ejectment.
2. Impact of subsequent events on the judgment.
3. Rights and obligations under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977.
4. Applicability of the doctrine of eviction by title paramount.
5. Consideration of subsequent events in civil litigation.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Notice of Ejectment:
The defendant-appellant contested the suit primarily on the ground that the notice of ejectment was defective. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 11th June 1998, ruled in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, directing eviction and recovery of arrears. This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court and the High Court.

2. Impact of Subsequent Events on the Judgment:
The appellant argued that a subsequent event had a material bearing on the judgment under appeal. Specifically, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) had initiated proceedings for resumption of the suit premises against the plaintiff-respondent. However, the High Court extended the time for vacating the premises, and the Supreme Court granted interim relief to the appellant.

3. Rights and Obligations under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977:
The suit premises were constructed by HUDA and allotted to the plaintiff-respondent, who was required to pay installments to HUDA. Failure to pay these installments could result in cancellation of the allotment u/s 17 of the Act. The Estate Officer, HUDA, had initially recalled the allotment, but this order was set aside by the Appellate Authority, allowing the respondent an extension of time to pay the arrears.

4. Applicability of the Doctrine of Eviction by Title Paramount:
The Supreme Court referred to its decision in Vashu Dev v. Bal Kishan, stating that to constitute eviction by title paramount, three conditions must be satisfied: (i) the party evicting must have a good and present title; (ii) the tenant must have quitted or attorned to the paramount title holder against his will; (iii) the landlord must be willing or a consenting party to such attornment, or there must be a legal event that binds the landlord. The Court found that these conditions were not met in the present case.

5. Consideration of Subsequent Events in Civil Litigation:
The Court noted that while it has the power to take note of subsequent events and mold the relief accordingly, this is subject to conditions such as the relief becoming inappropriate due to subsequent events, shortening litigation, and the event being brought to the Court's notice promptly. The appellant's reliance on subsequent events was not properly brought before the Court, and the plaintiff-respondent was not given an opportunity to address these new facts.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appellant was granted three months to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking and clearing all arrears within three weeks.

---