The judgment establishes the principle that the rights of parties should be determined based on the date of institution of the suit, but the court may consider changed circumstances if necessary for complete justice between the parties.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. C.M. No. 3412-CII of 2007 For the reasons stated in the application, the order dated 14.2.2007 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number. C.M. stands allowed. C.R. No. 6748 of 2001 The present revision petition has been filed against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned appellate authority.

2. The landlord respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) for eviction of the petitioner from the premises situated at Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. The case set up by the respondent- landlord was that petitioner was tenant in a portion of the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- (Rs. one hundred only) and the tenant was in arrears of rent. It was also claimed that the petitioner tenant had made material alterations in the tenanted premises. A ground of personal necessity was also taken. The application was contested and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the tender made by the respondent on the first date of hearing is not valid ? OPA

1-A. Whether the premises in dispute is required to the petitioner for her personal necessity ? OPA

2. Whether the respondent has materially changed the value and utility of the demised premises ? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR

4. Relief.

3. As tender having been made, issue No. 1 was not pressed whereas landlord respondent did not press eviction on the ground of material impairment of value and utility of the demised premises. The case was contested only on issue No. 1-A. The learned Rent Controller found the need to be bona fide and ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. The petitioner went in appeal before the appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal Smt. Shanti Devi landlord of the premises, for whom premises was sought, died. The petitioner, therefore, contend that due to the subsequent event the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner is not sustainable. However, the said plea was rejected by the learned appellate authority for the reason that by the death of landlord during the pendency of the petition the requirement does not cease to exist and other senior members of the family can continue the proceedings and execute the order of ejectment and take possession from the tenant. The Court also took note of the fact that no party could be given benefit for the delay on account of proceedings in the Court to give benefit to one of the party. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord had failed to prove even bona fide requirement, was also rejected. The primary ground for that was that it was for the landlord to decide as to how to she has to live and not for the tenant or the Court to form its opinion. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate Authority primarily on the ground that the authorities below have failed to take into consideration the subsequent events. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that eviction (petition) was filed for personal requirement of Smt. Shanti Devi alone and not for other family members and thus with the death of Smt. Shanti Devi the purpose of seeking eviction was lost. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kedar Nath Agrawal (dead) and another v. Dhanraji Devi (dead) by LRs. and another, 2004(2) RCR(Rent) 498 (SC) : 2004(8) SCC 76, wherein it has been held that :-

"13. The question then remains as to effect of subsequent events. It is not in dispute between the parties that during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, both the applicants died and their three daughters were brought on recor