The court emphasized the permissibility of considering subsequent events and the need to do complete justice between the parties in determining the landlord's claim for release of the shop.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.: -

1. Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P.C. Srivastava, Advocate for petitioners and Sri S.K. Srivastava, Advocate for respondents. This is landlord's writ petition who is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jaunpur in Rent Control Appeal No. 19 of 1986 and has come up. to this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same.

2. Mohammad Musa, father of petitioners, filed Release Application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") seeking release of accommodation in question, which is a shop, on the ground that his son Janual Abdin is unemployed and needs be employed in a separate business, therefore, shop in question should be released. Respondent No. 1, Govind Lal, contested the Release Application, filing his written statement disputing the need of petitioners' father and also claimed that he had enough alternative accommodation to accommodate his son.

3. Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 16.10.1986 allowed Release Application, holding that need set up by petitioners' father Mohammad Musa was genuine and bona fide and question of comparative hardship also lies in his favour.

4. Respondent-tenant preferred Rent Appeal No. 19 of 1986 which was allowed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Jaunpur vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 reversing and setting aside the judgment of Prescribed Authority, and as a result thereof, it rejected Release Application of the Landlord.

5. Since in the meantime landlord Mohammad Musha died when appeal was pending and the legal heirs were substituted, therefore, this writ petition has thus been filed by his legal heirs, i.e., his three sons, including Janual Abdin for whose benefit the Release Application was filed.

6. The finding, which has been concurred by both the Courts below, is that shop in dispute was owned by Mohammad Musa, the landlord; and, respondent No. 1 is tenant therein on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The shop in dispute, though a waqf property, but since Release Application was filed before 1995 amendment of Section 2 of Act, 1972, therefore, it was not barred in view of Apex court's decision in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Company and another, 2001 (8) SCC 397 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3580 ) followed by Division Bench of this Court in Champa Devi (Smt.) & Anr. v. Rent Control & Eviction Officer (Ist), Allahabad & Anr. 2002 (1) ARC 192 : (2002 ALJ 276) and also by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45578 of 2000 (Pooran Chandra v. 6th A.D.J. & others) decided on 1.11.2012.

7. The Lower Appellate Court has held that since during pendency of appeal, Mohammad Musa died, therefore the shop which was being run by him is now available to be run by his son Janual Abdin and this changed situation has changed the entire circumstances, therefore, the matter is liable to be reconsidered by Prescribed Authority as to whether the claim set up by landlord is still open and not rendered infructuous.

8. It is no doubt true that subsequent events can be taken into account to consider whether the cause of action still survive or not but each and every subsequent event, even without placing on record serious consequences flowing therefrom so as to render the entire cause of action futile cannot be visualized to non suit a landlord in respect of a claim. When and in which circumstances, the subsequent events can be looked into and in what manner, has been considered in various cases.

9. A three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders 1975 (1) SCC 770 : ( AIR 1975 SC 1409 ) permitted cognizance of subsequent events, though very cautiously, and said:

"We affirm the proposition that for making the right or