The court established that subsequent events, such as the death of landlords, must be considered in eviction proceedings to ensure justice and the rightful assessment of bona fide needs.

1 The present appeal is filed by the tenant of disputed shop ka situate in Kasba Rasra, Pargana Lakhaneshuwar, District Ballia, against the order of eviction passed by the prescribed authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in Case No. 29 of 1983, confirmed by the District Judge, Ballia in Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 1984 and also confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19160 of 1985.

2 To appreciate the controversy raised in the appeal, a few relevant facts may be stated.

3 An application under S.21 of the Act was filed by Dhanraji Devi and Jagdeo Shah, stating inter alia that Applicant 1 was the owner of the suit property and Applicant 2 was her husband. Applicant 2 purchased the property but due to his old age got the sale deed executed in the name of Applicant 1. It was also stated that Applicant 2 constructed a shop and carried on cloth business in the said shop for some time. He had also cloth business at Calcutta and since it was not properly managed, he decided to go to Calcutta. He let the suit shop to the opponents, appellants herein, for a period of one year. It was further stated in the application that due to riots in Bengal the applicants had to put an end to the business at Calcutta and they had to return to Ballia. The source of livelihood then remained in conducting business in the suit shop. They had obtained licence to carry on hosiery business. They, therefore, bona tide required the suit property for doing the said business and to earn livelihood. It was also alleged that the opponents were not doing any business in the suit shop and they had locked it only to harass the applicants. It was, therefore, prayed that an order of eviction may be passed against the opponents.

4 The opponents, appellants herein filed a written statement denying the facts stated and averments made in the application. It was denied that the applicants required the suit shop for their bona fide use for business. It was also stated that the opponents were paying rent regularly and doing their business since many years. It was asserted that the applicants had other properties also and hence their requirement could not be said to be bona fide. Moreover, the applicants had cloth business at Calcutta and they were not in need of the shop. It was, therefore, prayed that the application was liable to be dismissed.

5 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and considering the evidence adduced by them, the prescribed authority allowed the application and held that the applicants were entitled to possession of the suit shop as their need was bona fide. It further held that the applicants would suffer more hardship if the shop would not be released in their favour. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed in favour of the applicants and against the opponents.

6 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Ballia who also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the prescribed authority.

7 Against the order passed by the District Judge, the appellants approached the High Court of Allahabad. As stated above, even the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Before the High Court certain subsequent events which had emerged during the pendency of the writ petition, namely, death of Respondents 3 and 4 (original applicants) were brought to the notice of the Court. The Court, however, held that they could not be taken into consideration. Resultantly, the orders passed by the courts below were confirmed.

8 Notice was issued by this Court on 29-10-1999 in view of the provisions of sub-section (7) of S.21 of the Act as also in the light of the decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad ( 1981 (3) SCC 103 : AIR 1981 SC 1711 : 1981 (3) SCR 605). In the mea