JUDGMENT

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Special leave granted.

2. The grievance of the appellant-tenant is that the High Court in the proceedings of revision while granting leave to the Respondent-landlord to plead certain subsequent events, had virtually accepted the pleadings as proof in itself of the allegations which according to the respondent entitled him to possession. The trial court had negatived the bona fides of the landlords claim for possession. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is one thing to permit a party to urge certain subsequent events but quite another to assume, without more, that the facts so alleged are proved without the formality of an enquiry and recording of evidence. The proceedings in the High Court, says counsel, ceased to be revisional and assumed the character of a fresh trial on fresh grounds without an enquiry and trial of or evidence on those fresh grounds. Learned counsel says that pleading and proof of the subsequent events are two distinct stages and the High Court is in error in not keeping the two stages distinguished and in proceeding on the premise that the first stage could serve the purpose of the second also. It is further urged that the subsequent events now sought to be raised by the appellant himself before this court would, on considerations of comparative hardships, neutralise those pleaded by the respondent, even if they were true.

3. We may briefly recall the facts :

Respondent by his petition dated 28-6-1983 sought the eviction of the appellant from the accommodation in his occupation in the ground floor of premises No. 3195, Gali Sani Ram, Mohalla Dassan, Delhi, on grounds of respondents alleged bonafide need. The respondent was, it would appear, in occupation of the two upper floors and claimed that the accommodation in his occupation was insufficient for the requirements of himself and the members of his family and that, therefore, he bona fide needed the use of the ground floor as well.

On 28-7-1987 the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissed the petition holding that the accommodation in the possession of the respondent could not be said to be insufficient for his needs and that the alleged requirement put forward to evict the appellant was not bona fide.

In the revision petition preferred against this dismissal, the respondent sought to plead certain subsequent events which, according to him, justified grant of an order for possession. The subsequent events were that the health of the first son of the respondent was impaired by cardiac problems and that there was also additing to the family by subsequent births of grand children. It was also pleaded that the second son of the respondent had also, in the meanwhile, got married. The High Court permitted the respondent to raise these pleas and proceeded to dispose of the revision petition and granted possession on the basis of these subsequent events. It is relevant to note that learned counsel who had been engaged by the appellant had failed to appear at the revisional hearings. The subsequent prayer of the appellant for recalling the order and for being afforded an opportunity of being heard on the merits was declined by the High Court on the ground that the learned advocates who had failed to turn-up at the hearing had, apparently, declined to furnish affidavits as to the reason of their absence. The case of the appellant was lost on account of this refusal of the advocates to file their affidavits.

4. The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the list. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a cautious cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief.