IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction order against a tenant on bona fide need of landlord having become final under the Act cannot be interferred with by High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution by taking into account any subsequent event.

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.2.1997 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The Respondent- landlord filed a petition for eviction of the appellant under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 inter alia on the ground that he bona fide requires the premises for carrying on his own business and he has no other means of livelihood. The tenant-appellant filed objections before the prescribed authority stating therein that the application for eviction has been filed on false and baseless allegations and in fact the respondent does not need the premises bona fide for starting his own business. The prescribed authority on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the landlord does not require the premises for his own use bone fide. The said prescribed authority also came to the conclusion that the tenant would be comparatively harrassed if an order of eviction is passed. With these conclusions, the application for eviction having been rejected, the landlord preferred an appeal. The appellate authority re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and reversed the conclusion of the prescribed authority. The said appellate authority came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the requirement of the landlord to start a cloth business must be a bona fide requirement entitling him to get an order of eviction under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act. The appellate authority, therefore, set aside the order of the prescribed authority and directed eviction of the appellate. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the tenant carried the matter to the High Court by filing a writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court the landlord died and was substituted by his legal heirs namely his widow, two sons and the married daughter. On behalf of the tenant, it was urged before the High Court that the landlord having died, the bona fide requirement which was found to have existed by the appellate authority no more survives, and therefore, taking into consideration the subsequent event the High Court must quash the order of eviction passed by the appellate authority. On behalf of the landlord it was contended that the order of the appellate authority in the eviction proceedings, is a decree and that decree having become final, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will not be entitled to take into consideration any subsequent event that had occured and on that score it would not be appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the decree passed by the appellate authority. It was also contended that the requirement in question must exist on the day the application for eviction was filed and the same requirement having been found to be established by the competent forum who was required to go into the said question, it is no longer open to the High Court to interfere with the said finding in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the decree for eviction has become final and the said finality cannot be disturbed on the application under Article 226 of the Constitution by taking into account the facts that the original landlord died during the pendency of the writ petition.

3. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this Court urged that the person for whose bona fide requirement the order of eviction has been passed by the appellate authority having died during the pendency of the writ petition, the said bona fide requirement no longer subsists and consequently the High Court should have taken that fact into consideration and should have interfered with the order passed by the appellate authority for the eviction of the tenant. The learned Counsel further ur