$~99 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.11.2024 + RC.REV. 530/2015 ARVINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Mr. Parinav Gupta, Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advs.

versus URMILA BALI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

CM APPL. 66030/2024 [For subsequent events]

1. This is an Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant seeking to place on record the additional subsequent events.

2. This Court had on 12.11.2024 passed the following directions in the present Application:

“CM APPL. 66030/2024 [Seeking to place on record the subsequent events]

3. This is an Application filed during the ongoing arguments in the matter by the Petitioner/tenant for placing on record subsequent events. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant draws the attention of the Court to order dated 23.11.2023 passed in RC.REV. 146/2023 captioned Yogesh Kumar Gupta v. Urmila Bali Deceased Through LRs to submit that after the passing of the Impugned Order the necessity of one shop has been satisfied in view of this order which records that another shop belonging to the Respondent/landlord has since been vacated.

4. Issue Notice.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 530/2015 Page 1 of 14

4.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord accepts notice and objects to the filing of the present Application during the ongoing arguments in the matter. He, however, submits that so far as concerns the above captioned matter, the bona fide need as set out by the Respondent/landlord in that Petition was with respect to the need of her daughter-in-law, while the need in this Petition is for the son of the Respondent/landlord.

5. It is contended that the needs are distinguished and, hence, the Application is misconceived.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord seeks time to file a short reply attaching the relevant documents in this regard.

6.1 Let a reply be filed within one week.

7. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant shall provide the copy of this Application to the learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord during the course of the day under acknowledgement.

9. List this Application on 22.11.2024.”

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord draws attention of the Court to the Reply filed which extracts the order dated 23.11.2023 in RC.REV. 146/2023 captioned Yogesh Kumar Gupta v. Urmila Bali (deceased) through LRs to submit that the Application is misconceived since the subsequent event sought to be referred to, was an Eviction Order passed in respect of the bona fide need of the Respondent/landlord’s daughter-in-law, whereas the need in this petition is for the son of the Respondent/landlord.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) and Another v.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 530/2015 Page 2 of 14 Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs and Another, [(2004) 8 SCC 76] in support of his contentions.

5. The Supreme Court has in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, [(2001) 2 SCC 604] held that the date for considering the need of the Respondent/landlord is the date, the Eviction Petition was filed. However, and for an event to be considered by the Court as a subsequent event, it should be such that it would extinguish/eclipse the bona fide need of the Respondent/landlord entirely.

5.1 This Court has in Laxmi Narain and Others v. Vishal Moondhra and Others, [2024 SCC OnLine Del 387] while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad case held as follows:

“13. The Gaya Prasad case [Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, (2001) 2 SCC 604 : AIR 2001 SC 803] has held that crucial date for considering the bona fide need of the landlord is the date the petition was filed. Reliance is placed on the following extract:

(SCC p. 609, paras 10 and 11)

“10. We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding