TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under Section 21 of the Act was filed by Dhanraji Devi and Jagdeo Shah, stating inter alia that applicant No. 2 was the owner of the suit property and applicant No. 1 was her husband. Applicant No. 2 purchased the property but due to his old age got the sale deed executed in the name of applicant No. 1. It was also stated that applicant No. 2 constructed a shop and carried on cloth business in the said shop for some time. He had also cloth business at Calcutta and since it was not properly managed, he decided to go to Calcutta. He let the suit shop to the opponents - appellants herein for a period of one year. It was further stated in the application that due to riots in Bengal the applicants had to put an end to the business at Calcutta and they had to return at Ballia. The source of livelihood then remained in conducting business in the suit-shop. They had obtained licence to carry on hosiery business. They, therefore, bona fide required the suit property for doing the said business and to earn livelihood. It was also alleged that the opponents were not doing any business in the suit-shop and they had locked it only to harass the applicants. It was, therefore, prayed that an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al hearing on September 9, 2004 and since none was present, it was dismissed for default. It was then restored on February 17, 2003. On September 1, 2004, it was brought to the notice of the court that the possession of the disputed premises was taken over on October 22, 2002 after the appeal was dismissed for default and before an order of restoration was passed. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to obtain instructions. On September 29, 2002, when the matter was called out for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the possession was with the respondents, while the said statement was disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. We have heard the leaned counsel for both the parties. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Prescribed Authority under the Act has committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in ordering eviction against the appellants. According to the learned counsel it was not proved that the applicants bona fide required the property for doing business as asserted by them. It was also submitted that irreparable hardship would be caused to the appellants-tenants if order of eviction would be passed agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court, in our opinion the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. So far as the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority under the Act as to bona fide requirement of the applicants is concerned, in our opinion it is a pure finding of fact and cannot be disturbed by this Court. Similarly, regarding comparative hardship, the Prescribed Authority observed in the order that more hardship would be caused to the applicants if the order would not be passed in their favour than the hardship which would be caused to the opponents if the order of eviction would be passed against them. The said finding is also a finding of fact and cannot be upset. Hence, on both this counts, we are unable to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 13. The question then remains as to effect of subsequent event. It is not in dispute between the parties that during the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court, both the applicants died and their three daughters were brought oh record. It is also not in dispute that all the three daughters are married and they are at their marital homes with their in-laws. In view of the said fact an argument was advanced on behalf of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis of the date of institution of the, suit or proceeding and the suit/action should be tried at all stages on the cause of action as it existed at the commencement of the suit/action. This, however, does not mean that events happening after institution of a suit/proceeding, cannot be considered at all. It is the power and duty of the court to consider changed circumstances. A court of law may take into account subsequent events inter alia in the following circumstances: (i) The relief claimed originally has by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or (ii) It is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten litigation; or (iii) It is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice between the parties. [Re: Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors., [1974]3SCR101 ]. 17. Let us consider relevant case law in this regard. 18. Before about a century in Ram Rattan v. Mohant Saha (1907) 6 CLJ 74 : 11 CWN 732, the High Court of Calcutta observed that there are certain exceptions to the general rule that a suit must be tried in all stages on the cause of act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed" (Emphasis supplied) 21. Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu was followed in many cases. In Gulabbai v. Nalin Narsi Vohra and Ors., [1991]2SCR941 , an order of eviction was passed against the tenant on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. Subsequent event of shifting family of the landlord to a spacious bungalow constructed by him during the pendency of appeal, was considered by this Court. 22. In Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, AIR1992SC700 , this Court observed that a court can mould relief taking 'cautious cognizance' of subsequent events. The Court also observed that all these depend on fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally affect the result of the suit. 27. In Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal [2002]1SCR359 , this Court stated: "The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise." 28. Strong reliance was placed by the contesting respondents on a decision of this Court in Rameshwar and Ors. v. Jot Ram and Anr., [1976]1SCR847 , before the High Court as well as before us. In Rameshwar, the te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration. If every subsequent development during the post-petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow-process system subsists. During 23 years, after the landlord moved for eviction on the ground that his son needed the building, neither the landlord nor his son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition. Gaya Prasad is thus clearly distinguishable. 32. There is yet another reason on which the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside. As stated earlier, notice was issued by this Court on October 29, 1999 in view of provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of the said section enables the landlord to get possession of the tenanted properly on certain grounds. One of Such grounds is bona fide requirement by the landlord for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling. Sub-section (1) has to be read with Sub-section (7) of Section 21. The relevant part of Section 21 reads as under. "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.--(1) The Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists, namely-- (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, ....