2009 Supreme(SC) 1683

2009(7) Supreme 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam,JJ.
Jai Prakash Gupta (D) thr. Lrs. — Appellants
versus
Riyaz Ahamad & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. .................of 2009
( Arising out of SLP) No.5627 of 2008)
Decided on : 28-10-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Subsequent developments can be taken into consideration to afford relief to the parties, provided only when such developments had a material impact on those rights and obligations.

Headnote:U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 – Section 21(1)(a) – Appeal against Judgment and final order of High Court setting aside Judgment and order of the Additional District Judge,and remanding the same to it to consider the effect of subsequent developments which had occurred, on question of bonafide requirement of the landlord and also on comparative hardship of the parties – Instantly death of father of appellant was taken as a valid excuse by tenant to argue that since the present landlord had other options for accommodation and for starting an office as a Chartered Accountant, he could, without any hardship, forgo his claim to the shop in dispute – Again, if it was an admitted position that present landlord had acquired a house behind the shop in dispute, then he had to prove by evidence that said house available was not suitable for starting an office space for his Chartered Accountancy firm – Recorded findings were insufficient to decide matter in the light of the subsequent developments – High Court was fully justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Court in view of the fact that all the facts needed to be gone into after taking evidence on such facts – However, considering the age of the litigation i.e. 15 years and if the matter was sent back to the Appellate Court, the proceeding might continue for another 15 years, held that High Court was not justified in sending the case back to Appellate Court for fresh decision in the light of subsequent developments -It would have been appropriate and proper and in the interest of justice for the High Court to keep the Writ Petition pending before it and sent back the issue on the effect of subsequent developments and supplementary affidavit and counter affidavit on bonafide requirement and comparative hardship to Appellate Court and after the Appellate Court taking evidence, it shall send back to the High Court, the evidence that would be taken and also the findings arrived at thereon – Hence held that for the purpose of coming to a positive conclusion on the bonafide need of the present landlord and comparative hardship of the parties on the basis of subsequent developments, matter needed to be examined on further evidence after restoring Writ Petition before the High Court – Impugned Judgment of High Court set aside and Writ Petition restored to High Court (Paras 21 to 26)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeal has been filed against Judgment and final order of High Court setting aside Judgment and order of the Additional District Judge,and remanding the same to it to consider the effect of subsequent developments which had occurred, on question of bonafide requirement of the landlord and also on comparative hardship of the parties.

       Findings of the Court :

        Instantly death of father of appellant was taken as a valid excuse by tenant to argue that since the present landlord had other options for accommodation and for starting an office as a Chartered Accountant, he could, without any hardship, forgo his claim to the shop in dispute. Again, if it was an admitted position that present landlord had acquired a house behind the shop in dispute, then he had to prove by evidence that said house available was not suitable for starting an office space for his Chartered Accountancy firm. Recorded findings were insufficient to decide matter in the light of the subsequent developments. High Court was fully justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Court in view of the fact that all the facts needed to be gone into after taking evidence on such facts. However, considering the age of the litigation i.e. 15 years and if the matter was sent back to the Appellate Court, the proceeding might continue for another 15 years, held that High Court was not justified in sending the case back to Appellate Court for fresh decision in the light of subsequent developments.It would have been appropriate and proper and in the interest of justice for the High Court to keep the Writ Petition pending before it and sent back the issue on the effect of subsequent developments and supplementary affidavit and counter affidavit on bonafide requirement and comparative hardship to Appellate Court and after the Appellate Court taking evidence, it shall send back to the High Court, the evidence that would be taken and also the findings arrived at thereon.Hence held that for the purpose of coming to a positive conclusion on the bonafide need of the present landlord and comparative hardship of the parties on the basis of subsequent developments, matter needed to be examined on further evidence after restoring Writ Petition before the High Court. Impugned Judgment of High Court was set aside and Writ Petition was restored to High Court