Subsequent event whether can be considered for granting relief.

The landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He filed the petition before the Rent Controller under section 10 (2) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Apart from the grounds of nuisance and wilful default, the petitioner alleged that he wanted to celebrate the marriage of his two sons, aged 28 and 26 respectively, that the portion in his occupation consisting of one room and one kitchen, was not sufficient for the use and occupation of his family and that he bona fide required the portion in the occupation of the respondent for own use and additional accommodation. The respondent contended that he never committed any nuisance and that the allegation as if there was default in the payment of rent was not bona fide. He further contended that the petitioner was in the habit of evicting tenants for the purpose of letting portions in their occupation for higher rents and that there were no bona fides in the case of requirement of additional accommodation for owner’s occupation. The respondent also contended that the two rooms in the front portion were with the petitioner under his lock and key. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that there was no wilful default and that the requirement of additional accommodation was not bona fide. On appeal, the Appellate Authority (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes) dismissed the appeal holding that there was no wilful default and there was no bona fide in the prayer for additional accommodation. Aggrieved by the decision of the authorities below, the landlord has come to this Court in revision.

2. Thiru M. Srinivasan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that both the sons of the petitioner-landlord are married now and to that effect the petitioner has filed an affidavit in revision. It is stated that the petitioner’s family consists of his wife, four sons, two daughters-in-law and a grand-child. The learned Counsel also relied upon various decisions in order to substantiate his case and also stressed the point that the subsequent events can be taken note of by the Court to enable the petitioner to have additional accommodation, asked for by him.

3. Thiru M. Srinivasan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, cited the decision in Abdul Kareem v. C. M. Mohamed1. That arose out of a case of owner’s occupation, and not of additional accommodation. No doubt, in that decision, Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J., (as he then was) observed that the observation of the Authority below in that case that there was no satisfactory explanation as to whether the accommodation that he was to get in the rented premises was sufficient for him or not, was wholly immaterial consideration.

4. The decision in A. N. Shah v. A. Annapurnamma2, lays down:

“It is well-settled that in proper cases the Court is entitled to take note of the subsequent events and grant relief to the parties accordingly, if by so doing it can shorten litigation and best attain the ends of justice. This power may be exercised even by the Court of Appeal as an appeal is only in the nature of a re-hearing.”

5. The next decision cited by Thiru M. Srinivasan is the one in M/s. Kotalwar and Company v. N. Durgaiah3, dealing with the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Act. It is held there that it cannot be said that the Court would have no power to take note of subsequent events.

6. In D. Ranjanna v. Daulatram4, it has been observed thus: —

“The order of eviction in the instant case has not become final. It can become final if and when the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Till this is done, it is sub judice and the High Court can take note of events that happened subsequent to the order of eviction.” “It is true that section 22 of the Act does not authorise the High Court to admit additional evidence in revision. But having regard to the general principle that a Court or a Tribunal is entitled to take note of the subsequent events, the High Court can take the