IMPORTANT POINT
While considering the bonafides of need of landlord the criminal date is date of petition but Court is not precluded from moulding the relief in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and obligations.

Headnote:Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Section 12(1)(f)-Eviction of appellant tenant on ground of bona fide need of premises by landlord-Appellant s plea in second appeal before High Court that son of respondent-landlord got an employment in Indian Company and was settled in USA with no chance of his coming back-High Court maintained eviction order-Appeal-Contention that High Court lightly set aside subsequent event-While considering bona fides of need of landlord the crucial date is date of petition-Court is not precluded from moulding reliefs appropriately in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had impact on those rights and obligations-High Court considered subsequent events and their effect and factual finding did not suffer from any infirmity-No interference was warranted.
       Held : We cannot forget that while considering the bona fides of the need of the landlord the crucial date is the date of petition. In Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram (1992 (Suppl. (2) SCC 623) a two-judge Bench of this Court (M.N. Venkatachalia, J., as he then was, and N.M. Kasliwal, J.) pointed out that the normal rule is that rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined as they were when the lis commenced and the only exception is that the court is not precluded from moulding the reliefs appropriately in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and obligations. (Para 9)
       In the background of the factual position one thing which clearly emerges is that the High Court had considered the subsequent events which the appellants highlighted and tend to hold that the bona fide need continues to subsist. As observed in Hasmat Rai s case (supra) the appellate Court is required to examine, evaluate and adjudicate the subsequent events and their effect. This has been done in the instant case. That factual finding does not suffer from any infirmity. What the appellants have highlighted as subsequent events fall within the realm of possibility or probability of non-return and a certainty, which is necessary to be established to show that the need has been eclipsed. At this juncture it would be appropriate to take note of Section 17 of the Act. Same deals with consequences which statutorily follow if there is deviation from the purposes for which possession has been recovered. If in the instant case such contingency arises, the respondents shall re-deliver possession to the appellants-tenants on such terms as the Rent Controlling Authority shall fix. (Paras 18 and 19)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-The tenants are in appeal against the impugned judgment of the VIIth Civil Judge No. 2, Bhopal, M.P., the first Appellate Court, and finally the judgment of affirmation by learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

2. A suit for eviction was filed before the trial court under Section 12(1)(a)(b) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). The plaintiffs filed the suit on the ground that (a) there was default in payments of the rent due, (b) the tenant (defendant No. 1) had unlawfully sublet the tenanted premises and (c) for bona fide requirement. The trial court framed, in total, 13 issues and held that the need of the plaintiffs, so far as the suit premises are concerned, was genuine and bona fide. It was also held that the plaintiffs had not got other suitable accommodation available and the defendant No. 1 had sublet the premises to defendant No. 2. The suit was accordingly decreed.

3. In appeal the Appellate Authority held that the plea of subletting was not established. However, the finding regarding bona fide need was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. In Second Appeal the judgments of the courts below, so far as it was adverse to the appellant, were affirmed. Tenants filed an application in terms of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short the CPC ). Another application for amendment of the Written Statement was also filed. By these two applications the appellants wanted to highlight the alleged factual position that during the pendency of the matter Naresh Talreja son of the appellant No. 1, Uttam Chand (respondent No. 1 herein) had acquired a degree in Engineering, got an employment in an Indian Company and subsequently was settled in USA and was working there, with no chance of his coming back to India. Therefore it was submitted that the alleged bona fide need and requirement, for which the application was filed, had become non-existent, thereby disentitling the plaintiffs from any relief.

4. The present respondents refuted the claim of the appellants and submitted that since there was no other accommodation readily available Naresh Talreja pursued study in Engineering and was temporarily engaged in USA. He wanted to come back and start his business.

5. The High Court found that the requirements of Section 12(1)(f) of the Act were fully complied with and in view of concurrent findings recorded to the effect that there was bona fide need of the premises, Second Appeal had no merit. Accordingly the High Court dismissed the Second appeal. Time was granted till the end of August, 2002 to vacate the premises.

6. In support of the appeal, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the High Court has lightly set aside the subsequent events. It is a settled position in law that the question whether a person has bona fide need, was not restricted to the point of time when the application for eviction is made; it continues till final adjudication. On the facts of the case the High Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the need subsisted

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a person, for whose bona fide need the premises are required, cannot just remain idle in anticipation of getting the premises for starting business. As there was delay in disposal of the matter, Naresh completed his studies and had taken temporary employment with visa for limited period and intended to come back to India as soon as premises are available to start the business. In any event, it was pointed out if there was non-user of the premises for the purpose for which eviction was sought for, the concerned tenant has protection in terms of Section 17 of the Act.

8. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1031

IMPORTANT POINTWhile considering the bonafides of need of landlord the criminal date is date of petition but Court is not precluded from moulding the relief in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and obligations.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
While considering the bonafides of need of landlord the criminal date is date of petition but Court is not precluded from moulding the relief in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and obligations.