Title paramount and subsequent events cannot defeat eviction without finality, proper pleading, and proof.

A tenant cannot resist eviction on the basis of alleged title paramount unless the supposed superior title has matured into a final, effective process binding on the landlord. Where HUDA proceedings against the landlord had not finally extinguished the allotment and no direct allotment existed in the tenant's favour, the plea fails. Subsequent events may be considered to mould relief only when properly pleaded, usually through amendment, and supported by proof showing that later developments legally displaced the landlord's right. Absent such pleading, amendment, and finality, later facts do not disturb the eviction decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenant could resist eviction by relying on alleged eviction by title paramount arising from HUDA proceedings against the landlord. (ii) Whether a subsequent event occurring after institution of the suit could be used to upset the eviction decree in the absence of proper pleading and proof.

Issue (i): Whether the tenant could resist eviction by relying on alleged eviction by title paramount arising from HUDA proceedings against the landlord.

Analysis: The landlord's allotment had not been finally extinguished. The order of the Estate Officer under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 had been set aside in appeal, and no direct allotment had been made in favour of the tenant. The conditions necessary to establish eviction by title paramount were not satisfied, because the alleged superior title had not matured into an effective and final process binding on the landlord.

Conclusion: The plea of eviction by title paramount failed and was not available to the tenant.

Issue (ii): Whether a subsequent event occurring after institution of the suit could be used to upset the eviction decree in the absence of proper pleading and proof.

Analysis: Though courts may take note of subsequent events and mould relief where justice so requires, such power is exercised cautiously and ordinarily on proper pleadings or amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The tenant did not properly seek amendment or establish that the later HUDA proceedings had attained finality or had legally displaced the landlord's right. The matter remained a landlord-tenant dispute, and the later facts were not fit to dislodge the decree under appeal.

Conclusion: The subsequent event could not be relied upon to set aside or disturb the eviction decree.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, and the eviction decree in favour of the landlord was maintained, with time granted only for vacating possession and clearing dues.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenant cannot defeat an eviction decree by invoking a supposed paramount title unless the superior title has culminated in a binding and effective process against the landlord, and subsequent events can affect the relief only when properly pleaded, substantiated, and legally capable of altering the parties' rights.

---