IMPORTANT POINT
In the eviction suit basic rule is that rights of parties should be determined on basis of date of institution of suit but subsequent events are to be taken into consideration.

Headnote:(i) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Sections 21 and 21(7)-Eviction petition on bona fide ground that suit shop was required for doing business and earn livelihood by applicants, husband and wife-Suit decreed by prescribed Authority and decree was upheld in appeal-During pendency of writ petition filed by tenant, death of both applicants-landlords took place and was brought to notice of Court-High Court confirmed eviction order holding that subsequent event of death of both applicants could not be taken into consideration-Appeal-After death of applicants three married daughters were brought on record-Whether High Court erred in not taking subsequent event of death of applicants into consideration? Yes.
       Held : In our opinion, by not taking into account the subsequent event, the High Court has committed an error of law and also an error of jurisdiction. In our judgment, the law is well settled on the point, and it is this: The basic rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis 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. (Para 14)
       In view of the settled legal position as also the decisions in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu and Hasmat Rai, in our opinion, the High Court was in error in not considering the subsequent event of death of both the applicants. In our view, it was power as well as the duty of the High Court to consider the fact of death of the applicants during the pendency of the writ petition. Since it was the case of the tenant that all the three daughters got married and were staying with their in-laws, obviously, the said fact was relevant and material. The ratio laid down by this Court in Rameshwar, would not apply to the facts of this case as it related to agrarian reforms. Likewise, Gaya Prasad, does not carry the matter further. There during the pendency of proceedings the son for whom requirement was sought had joined Government Service. In the instant case, the requirement was for the applicants, who died during the pendency of writ petition. Gaya Prasad is thus clearly distinguishable. (Para 28)
       (ii) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 21(7)-Eviction application on ground of bona fide need-Death of applicant during pendency of petition-Legal representatives can prosecute application on basis of their own need in substitution of need of deceased.

JUDGMENT

Thakker, J.-The present appeal is filed by the tenant of disputed shop ka situate in Kasba Rasra, Paragana Lakhaneshuwar, District Ballia, against the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), in Case No.29 of 1983, confirmed by the District Judge, Ballia in Rent Control Appeal No.4 of 1984 and also confirmed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19160 of 1985.

2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the appeal, few relevant facts may be stated.

An application 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 order of eviction may be passed against the opponents.

3. The opponents - appellants herein filed a written statement denying the facts stated and averments made in the application. It was denied that the applicants required the suit-shop for their bona fide use for business. It was also stated that the opponents were paying rent regularly and doing their business since many years. It was asserted that the applicants had other properties also and hence their requirement could not be said to be bona fide. Moreover, the applicants had cloth business at Calcutta and they were not in need of the shop. It was, therefore, prayed that the application was liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and considering the evidence adduced by them, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application and held that the applicants were entitled to possession of the suit-shop as their need was bona fide. It further held that the applicants would suffer more hardship if the shop would not be released in their favour. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed in favour of the applicants and against the opponents.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Ballia who also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority.

6. Against the order passed by the District Judge, the appellants approached the High Court of Allahabad. As stated above, even the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Before the High Court certain subsequent events which had emerged during the pendency of the writ petition, namely, death of respondents No.3 and 4 (Original applicants) were brought to the notice of the court. The court, however, held that they could not be taken into consideration. Resultantly, the orders passed by the courts-below were confirmed.

7. Notice was issued by this Court on October 29,1999 in view of the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act as also in the light of the decision of three Judge Bench of this Court in Hasmat Rai & another vs. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 198

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1309

IMPORTANT POINTIn the eviction suit basic rule is that rights of parties should be determined on basis of date of institution of suit but subsequent events are to be taken into consideration.

Cases Referred (12)

IMPORTANT POINT
In the eviction suit basic rule is that rights of parties should be determined on basis of date of institution of suit but subsequent events are to be taken into consideration.