Radhakrishnan, J.

Does the landlord’s need extinguish merely because he got vacant possession of another premises during the pendency of the rent control proceedings, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Original landlord died pending the revision petition. Legal heirs got themselves impleaded and wanted to continue the proceedings for eviction under Section 11 (3) of Act 2 of 1965. Original landlord bonafide required the premises for the purpose of starting business of provisions stores and stationery. Building was rented out by the father of the landlord to the father of the tenant in the year 1959. Monthly rent was Rs.100/- which was enhanced to 170/-. Tenant is conducting a printing press viz., Udaya Press in the tenanted premises. Original landlord requested for surrender of the premises since the building was required for own requirement. Rent control petition was filed under sections 11(3) and (11) (8) of Act 2 of 1965. We are in this case concerned only with the ground urged under Section 11(3). Landlord got himself examined as P.W.1. Tenant was examined as R.W.1. On the side of the landlord, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the tenant Ext.B1 was marked. Ext.C1 is the commission report and Ext. C1(a) is the plan. Rent Control Court rejected the petition on both the grounds. In appeal the Appellate Authority allowed eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act and also found that tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso as well.

3. Counsel appearing for the tenant contended that due to the death of the landlord and also due to subsequent events, bonafide need urged by the landlord no more survives and has ceased to exist. Further it is stated, legal heirs had already come into possession of an area of 500 sq. ft. surrendered by P.A. George and Company, another tenant, in the ground floor of the building 37/1356 situated in the same compound, hardly 8 metres away. Present landlords if they bonafide requied the premises for their own purpose of starting provision store and stationery they can very well use the same Pointing out these subsequent events, an affidavit was filed by the present tenants on 16.6.2004. Counter affidavit has been filed by the landlords refuting the averments contained therein. It is stated in the affidavit that the landlord’s widow was a teacher in F.A.C.T. school and that she took voluntary retirement on 31.3.2004. She has a son aged 31 and daughter aged 27. Both of them are unmarried and have no regular income of their own. Therefore she wanted to start the business in provisions and stationery in the tenanted premises. The portion used as godown by P.A. George and Co. is required for their residence. Special reasons therefore exist, according to the landlords, for the use of the said premise.

4. The mere fact that a landlord has come into possession of a premises while the rent control proceeding is pending does not mean that he should occupy that premises rather than proceeding with the rent control proceeding initiated against another tenant.

5. Rent control petition was filed by the landlord in the year 1998. The apex court in G.C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin and others (2002 (1) SCC 610) held that crucial date for determination of bonafides of the need is the date of filing of the eviction petition. The apex court in The apex Court in Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram (1992) (2) SCC 623) has pointed out that the normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined as they were when the lis commenced and the only exception is that the court is not precluded from moulding the reliefs appropriately in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and obligations. In Hasmat Rai v. Raghumath Prasad (1981 (3) SCC 103) the apex court held that where possession is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord