IMPORTANT POINT
While it is true that the right to relief must be judged by reference to the date suit or the legal proceedings were instituted, it is equally true that if subsequent to the filing of the suit, certain developments take place that have a bearing on the right to relief claimed by a party, such subsequent events cannot be shut out from consideration.

Headnote:Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1965- Section 11(3)-Eviction petition filed by original owners on ground of bona fide personal occupation-Dismissed by Rent Controller holding that owners had failed to establish their bona fide requirement of premises-On appeal Appellate Authority affirmed the decision taken by Rent Controller-Revision Petition-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Death of landlord during the pendency of revision petition –Plea of appellants that it was permissible for legal heirs to continue the present proceedings and seek eviction of tenant on the basis of requirement pleaded by the erstwhile owners in the eviction petition filed by them- No dispute that in the eviction petition owners had pleaded their own requirement for the premises to be occupied by them for residential as well as commercial purposes-The eviction petition was totally silent about the requirements of any member of the family of the owners-petitioners leave alone any member of their family who was dependant upon them- Neither before Rent Controller nor before Appellate Authority was it argued that requirement in question was not only the requirement of petitioner-owners of the premises but also requirement of any other member of their family whether dependant upon them or otherwise-Apart from that legal representatives who claimed to be the family members of the deceased were all married daughters of deceased couple each one settled in their respective matrimonial homes in different cities and at different places-None of them was dependant upon the deceased-petitioner -Difficult to see how legal representatives of deceased-appellant could be allowed to set up a case which was never set up before the Courts below so as to bring forth a requirement that was never pleaded at any stage of the proceedings-Allowing the legal heirs to do so would amount to permitting them to introduce a case which is totally different from the one set up before the Rent Controller the Appellate Authority or even the High Court-Hence held that on the death of the petitioners in original eviction petition their right to seek eviction on ground of personal requirement for the demised premises became extinct and no order could on the basis of any such requirement be passed –Appeal disposed of. (Paras 9, 19 to 22)
       Facts of the Case :
        An Eviction petition was filed by original owners herein in the instant case on ground of bona fide personal occupation. Said petition was Dismissed by Rent Controller holding that owners had failed to establish their bona fide requirement of premises.On appeal Appellate Authority affirmed the decision taken by Rent Controller. Revision Petition thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court. Since landlord expired during the pendency of revision petition appellants contended that it was permissible for legal heirs to continue the present proceedings and seek eviction of tenant on the basis of requirement pleaded by the erstwhile owners in the eviction petition filed by them.
       Findings of the Court :
        There was no dispute that in the eviction petition owners had pleaded their own requirement for the premises to be occupied by them for residential as well as commercial purposes.The eviction petition was totally silent about the requirements of any member of the family of the owners-petitioners leave alone any member of their family who was dependant upon them. Neither before Rent Controller nor before Appellate Authority was it argued that requirement in question was not only the requirement of petitioner-owners of the premises but also requirement of any other member of their family whether dependant upon them or otherwise.Apart from that legal representatives who claimed to be the family members of the deceased were all married daughters of deceased couple each one settled in their respective matrimonial homes in different cities and at different places.None of them was dependant upon the deceased-petitioner .Held Difficult to see how legal representatives of deceased-appellant could be allowed to set up a case which was never set up before the Courts below so as to bring forth a requirement that was never pleaded at any stage of the proceedings.Allowing the legal heirs to do so would amount to permitting them to introduce a case which was totally different from the one set up before the Rent Controller the Appellate Authority or even the High Court.Hence held that on the death of the petitioners in original eviction petition their right to seek eviction on ground of personal requirement for the demised premises became extinct and no order could on the basis of any such requirement be passed .Appeal was disposed of.
       Result : Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J. —

1. This appeal by Special Leave arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby C.R.P. No.558 of 1994 has been dismissed and the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the eviction petition filed against the tenant wife affirmed. In a nutshell, the facts giving rise to the controversy are as under:

2. Late Shri K. Sachindanda Iyer and his wife late Smt. A Sheshambal Sachindanda Iyer owners of the premises in dispute let out the same to respondent No.1 for a period of three years in terms of a lease dated 12th April, 1983. On the expiry of the lease period the owners filed RCP No.116 of 1986 before the Rent Controller at Ernakulam seeking eviction of the tenant-occupant on the ground that they required the same for their bona fide personal occupation within the meaning of Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1965. The prayer for eviction was opposed by the tenant, inter alia, on the ground that the owners did not require the demised premises and that the tenant would find it difficult to shift its business to any other premises on account of non-availability of a suitable accommodation for being so. The Rent Controller eventually came to the conclusion that the owners had failed to establish their bona fide requirement of premises. The Rent Controller held that the owners had shifted their residence from Cochin and were living with their daughter and son-in-law who were running a nursing home in that city.

3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, the owners appealed to the Appellate Authority who affirmed the decision taken by the Rent Controller holding that the owners were residing with their daughter and son-in-law at Ernakulam in a building owned by the owners. The Appellate Authority also found that the owners had a cottage at Kodaikanal and that being fairly old had no reason to shift back to Ernakulam in search of better medical facilities especially when their own son-in-law was running a nursing home at Coimbatore where such facilities were available to them. Absence of any medical evidence to show that the owners suffered from any illness was also cited as a ground for dismissal of the prayer for eviction.

4. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority the owners brought up the matter before the High Court of Kerala in a revision with a view to have the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below set aside. The High Court, as noted earlier, has refused to intervene in the matter and dismissed the revision petition. The High Court held that it was not expected to reappraise the evidence produced by the parties in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and that the limited question that fell for its consideration was whether the procedure followed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority was illegal, irregular or improper. The High Court noted that the rent of the premises paid by the tenant had not been revised since the year 1973. The same was, therefore, enhanced to Rs.10,000/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.11.2003 onwards with liberty to the parties to approach the competent Court for fixation of fair rent for the demised premises. The present appeal, as seen earlier, calls in question the correctness of the above orders.

5. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the revision petition before the High Court the landlord Shri K. Sachindanda Iyer passed away on 24th April, 1996 leaving behind his wife Smt. A. Sheshambal Sachindanda Iyer as the sole revision petitioner seeking eviction of the respondent- tenant. Consequent upon the dismissal of the revision petition the present appeal was filed by Smt. A. Sheshambal Sachindanda Iyer alone who too passed away before this appeal could be heard for final disposal. IA No.7/2008 filed on 14th November, 2008 sought substitution of the legal representatives of the appellan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 171

2010 (2) Supreme SUPREME COURT OF INDIAMarkandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ.Seshambal (dead) Through L.Rs. — AppellantsversusM/s Chelur Corporation Chelur Building & Ors. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 565 of 2005Decided on : 17-02-2010

Cases Referred (17)

2010 (2) Supreme
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ.
Seshambal (dead) Through L.Rs. — Appellants
versus
M/s Chelur Corporation Chelur Building & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 565 of 2005
Decided on : 17-02-2010