Important Point
Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on entitlement of parties to relief or on aspects which bear on moulding of the relief, Court can so long as litigation pends take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice.

Headnote:Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 21 - Release applications filed by appellant u\s 21 claiming to be landlord – Eviction petition held not maintainable by Prescribed authority – Appeal – Dismissed by Appellate authority – Writ petition – High Court holding that even if it was found that decisions of Courts below were erroneous, remanded matter back to prescribed authority holding that as release application was filed quarter of century ago, bonafide need and comparative hardship change by passage of time – Appeal – Plea that High Court even though referred to relevance of subsequent events erred in remanding matter back to Prescribed Authority – Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on entitlement of parties to relief or on aspects which bear on moulding of the relief Court can so long as litigation pends take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice - Rights of parties stand crystalised on date of institution of suit and, hence, decree in a suit should accord with rights of parties as they stood at commencement of lis - However, Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould relief accordingly subject to conditions being satisfied that relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to parties - (1975 (1) SCC 770) relied upon. (Paras 10,11,12)
       Facts of the case :
       Release applications were filed by appellant u\s 21 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 herein in the instant case claiming to be landlord. Said eviction petition was held not maintainable by Prescribed authority. Appeal there against was dismissed by Appellate authority. On Writ petition, High Court observing that even if it was found that decisions of Courts below were erroneous, remanded matter back to prescribed authority holding that as release application was filed quarter of century ago, bonafide need and comparative hardship change by passage of time.
       Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court on plea that High Court even though referred to relevance of subsequent events erred in remanding matter back to Prescribed Authority.
       Findings of the Court :
       The court relying upon decision in case of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders (1975 (1) SCC 770), held that wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on entitlement of parties to relief or on aspects which bear on moulding of the relief Court can so long as litigation pends take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice. Rights of parties stand crystalised on date of institution of suit and, hence, decree in a suit should accord with rights of parties as they stood at commencement of lis. However, Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould relief accordingly subject to conditions being satisfied that relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to parties. High Court held unjustified in disposing of writ petition in a summary fashion. Impugned order of single judge set aside and matter remanded back to High Court for consideration afresh.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court came to the conclusion that even if it is found that the decisions of the Courts below are erroneous in law, the matter needs to be remanded to the prescribed authority. A release petition was filed by the appellant claiming to be the landlord under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the ‘Act’).

3.The background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

“Appellant is the owner and the landlord in respect of disputed shop situated in Mohalla Asifganj, Azamgarh City, Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1947 respondent no.1 Ram Lakhan was inducted as a tenant in the shop in question on monthly rent of Rs.40/- by the then owner. In the year 1952 the disputed shop was purchased by the appellant’s mother Smt. Pyari Kunwar. After the death of his mother, appellant became owner of the property. Family of the appellant at that time was very small. Since appellant had no commercial space available he was carrying on business in a shop belonging to one Shri Jagannath which he had taken on rent. During the pendency of the case before the High Court, the appellant was evicted from the said shop and he has no other premises to carry on the business. Appellant has three sons. Apart from the disputed shop, the appellant had another small shop adjacent to it. As appellant’s son Asthbujhi Prasad wanted to carry on business the said shop is being used by him. Appellant’s two other sons are unemployed and one of them has completed Chartered Accountancy course. Due to non-availability of commercial space, the said son Kameshewar Prasad had to set up his office at a distance of 100 Kms. Since respondent no.1 was repeatedly committing default in payment of rent to the mother of the appellant, a suit had been filed (Suit no. 23 of 1970) for ejectment of respondent no.1 on the ground of default. Though suit was decreed upto second appeal stage, in appeal the order of ejectment was set aside by this Court by judgment dated 30.11.1976, as respondent no.1 had started depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act. In 1980, appellant moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The same was resisted by the respondent. The Prescribed Authority on the report of the Commissioner, who was appointed to make inspection of the premises, held that the eviction petition was not maintainable. The First Appellant Authority upheld the order of rejection by the Prescribed Authority. Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment and order dated 22.4.1983 of the Appellate Authority affirming order of the Prescribed Authority. Appellant brought to the notice of the High Court that he had been evicted from the tenanted premises where he was carrying on business and, therefore, he was left with no accommodation to earn his livelihood. The High Court, as noted supra, held that even if it is found that the findings of the courts below are erroneous in law the matter has remanded to the Prescribed Authority as the release application was filed quarter of century ago, and bona fide need, and comparative hardship change by the passage of time. The writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the appellant to file fresh release application.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. It is settled position in law that subsequent events can be taken note of. The High Court, even though referred to the relevance of the subsequent events erroneously came to the conclusion that even if the judgment and order passed by the courts below are erroneous in law, the matter will have to be remanded to the Prescribed Authority. There is no such requirement in law. In fact, after noticing that the release

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 725

Important PointWherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on entitlement of parties to relief or on aspects which bear on moulding of the relief, Court can so long as litigation pends take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice.

Cases Referred (4)

Important Point
Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on entitlement of parties to relief or on aspects which bear on moulding of the relief, Court can so long as litigation pends take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice.