Holding

While factual findings on bona‑fide requirement and comparative hardship cannot be disturbed, the High Court must consider the death of the landlords and Section 21(7), and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.

Summary

The landlords applied under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for eviction of a shop occupied by the tenant, claiming a bona‑fide requirement. The Prescribed Authority, the District Judge and the High Court all upheld the eviction. During the pendency of the writ petition, both landlords died, and the tenant argued that the ground of bona‑fide requirement no longer existed. The Supreme Court held that the factual findings on bona‑fide requirement and comparative hardship could not be disturbed, but the High Court erred by refusing to consider the subsequent deaths and the provisions of Section 21(7) which allow legal representatives to continue the application on their own need. Consequently, the Court remitted the matter to the High Court to reconsider the case in light of the deaths and Section 21(7). The appeal was partly allowed and the High Court order was set aside.

Issues considered

The factual findings of the Prescribed Authority on bona‑fide requirement and comparative hardship are appealable.
Whether the High Court was bound to consider the subsequent death of the landlords and the provisions of Section 21(7) of the Act.
Whether the requirement for possession must continue to exist until the final decree.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 21(1)(a), s. 21(7)

Subjects

rent controlevictionbona fide requirementsubsequent eventSection 21legal representativescomparative hardshipcivil procedure

Judgment

A KEDAR NATH AGRA WAL (DEAD) AND ANR.

DHANRAJI DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.

OCTOBER 13, 2004

B [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.]

Rent Control and Eviction:

Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation ofLetting, Rent and Eviction)
C Act, 1972-Section 2l(J)(a) and (7)-Eviction suit-Order for eviction by
Courts below on the ground of bonafide requirement and comparative
hardship-Writ Petition-During pendency of petition original applicants
died-Plea of tenant that in view of subsequent event, the ground of eviction
did not survive-On appeal, held: The questions of bona fide requirement and
D comparative hardship being finding of fact cannot be interfered with-
However, subsequent event was required to be taken into consideration-
Though rights of parties should be determined on the basis of date of
institution ofsuit, it does not mean that subsequent event cannot be considered
at all-The legal representatives can prosecute the application of eviction
on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased-
E Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration.

Respondent-landlords filed application u/s 21 ofUttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)" Act, 1972 against the
appellant-tenant for eviction of the suit premises i.e. a shop on the ground of
F bonafide requirement Tenant opposed the application on the ground that the
landlord had other properties also and hence their requirement was not
bonafide. Prescribed Authority allowed the application holding that landlords
were entitled to possession on the ground of bonafide requirement and also
on the ground that they would suffer more hardship ifthe shop would not be
released in their favour. Appeal against the order was dismissed. Writ Petition
G was filed in High Court During pendency of the petition both the respondents
died. The subsequent event of death of the respondents was brought to notice
of the Court contending that on their death the ground of bonafide
requirement did not subsist. High Court refused to take into consideration
the subsequent event and dismissed the Writ Petition.

H 422
,,
KEDAR NATH AGRAWAL v. DHANRAJI DEVI 423
-
. In appeal before this Court appellant-tenant contended that eviction order A
could not have been passed on the grounds of bonafide requirement and
comparative hardship as bonajide requirement w~s not proved; that High
Court was bound to consider subsequent event; and that it was duty of High
Court to consider the provisions of Section 21(7) of the Act to decide whether
legal representatives i.e. three daughters of applicants who were married and B
were living in their matrimonial home, were entitled to contest the Writ
Petition.

Legal representatives of respondent-landlords contended that the
subsequent event was of no consequence as the date for deciding the /is is the
date of institution of application/suit C
Partly allowing the appeal, and remitting the matter to High Court, this
Court

HELD: 1.1. The finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority under
Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, D
1972 as to bona fide requirement of the applicants is a pure finding of fact
and cannot be disturbed by this Court Regarding comparative hardship, the
Prescribed Aut~ority observed in the order that more hardship would be
caused to the applicants if the order would not be passed in their favour than
the hardship which would be caused to the opponents if the order of eviction
would be passed against them. The said finding is also a finding of fact and E
cannot be upset [428-B-C)

2.1. By not taking into account the subsequent event~ the High Court
has committed an error of law and also an error of jurisdiction. The basic
rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the,
date of institution of the suit or proceeding and the suit/action should be tried F
at all stages on the cause of action as it existed at the commencement of the
suit/action. This, however, does not mean that events happening after
institution of a suit/proceeding, cannot be considered at all. It is the power
and duty of the court to consider changed circumstances. A Court of la°" may
take into account subsequent events inter alia when (i) The relief claimed G
originally has by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become
inappropriate, or (ii) It is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in
order to shorten litigation; or (iii) It is necessary to.do so in order to do
iii complete justice between the parties. [429-C-F]

Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors., H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A [1974] 1 SCC 675 [1974) 3 SCR 101, relied on.
Ram Rattan v. Mohani Saha, (1907) 6 Cal LJ 74: Cal WN 732, referred
to.

2.2. High Court was in error in not considering the subsequent event
B of death of both the applicants. It was power as well as the duty of the High
Court to consider the fact of death of the applicants during the pendency of
the Writ Petition. Since it was the case of the tenant that all the three
daughters got married and were· staying with their in-laws, obviously, the said
fact was relevant and material. [434-F-G]

C Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Choudhury, AIR (1941)
FC 5; Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, [1975) 3 SCR
958; Gulabhai v. Na/in Narsi Vohra and Ors., [1991) 3 SCC 483; Ramesh
Kumar v. Kesho Ram, [1992) Supp. 2 SCC 623; Shadi Singh v. Rakha, [1992)
3 SCC 55; Super Forgings and Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. v. Thyaba:l; Rasuljee
D (Dead) Through LRs., [1995) I SCC 410; P. Sriramamurthy v. Vasantha Raman
(Mrs.), [1997) 9 SCC 654; Lekh Raj v. Muni Lal and Or~ .• [2001) 2 SCC 762;
Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, [2002) 2 SCC 256 and Hasmat Rai
and Anr. v. Raghunath Prasad, [1981) 3 SCR 605, relied on.

Rameshwar and Ors. v. Jot Ram and Anr., [1976) 1 SCC 194 [1976) 1
E SCR 847 and Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, [2001) 2 SCC 604 AIR
(2001) SC 803, distinguished.

3.1. Conjoint reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(7) of Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 makes it clear that where the possession is
F sought by the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement and during
the pendency of the application, the landlord dies, his legal representatives
can prosecute such application on the basis of their own need in substitution
of the need of the deceased. [435-G-H]

3.2. The matter is remitted to the High Court with a direction that the
G High Court shall consider the subsequent event of death of both the applicants
and also the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 21 of the Act in the light
of observations made by this Court. [436-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 41 of2000.

H From the Judgment and Order dated 6.8.99 of the Allahabad High Court
KEDAR NATH AGRA WAL v. DHANRAJI DEVI [THAKKER, J.] 425
in C.M.W.P. No. 19160of1985. A
Sanjay Kumar Singh and V.B. Joshi for the Appellants.

Manoj K. Mishra and N.S. Bis]J.t for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
THAKKER, J. The present appeal is filed by the tenant of disput¢d
shop ka situate in Kasha Rasra, Paragana 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.29of1983, confirm¢d C
by the District Judge, Ballia in Rent Control Appeal No.4 of 1984 and also
confirmed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Wtit
Petition No.19160of1985.

To appreciate the controversy raised in the appeal, few relevant facts
may be stated. D
An application under Section 21 oi the Act was filed by Dhanraji Devi
and Jagdeo Shah, stating inter alia that applicant No.2 was the owner of the
suit property and applicant No. I was her husband. Applicant No.2 purchased
the property but due to his old age got the sale deed executed in the name
of applicant No. l. It was also stated that applicant No.2 constructed a shop E
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 F
they had to return at Ballia. The source of livelihood then remained ~n
conducting business in the suit-shop. They had obtained licence to carry on
hosiery business. They, therefore, bona fide 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 lock¢d
it only to harass the applicants. It was, therefore, prayed that an order of G
eviction may be passed against the opponents.

The opponents - appellants herein filed a written statement denying tb.e
I
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 H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 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.
B
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
C if the shop would nQt be released in their favour. Accordingly, an order of
eviction was passed in favour of the applicants and against the opponents.

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
D Prescribed Authority.

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
E No3 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.

Notice was issued by this Court on October 29, 1999 in view of the
provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act as also in the light of
F the decision of three Judge Bench of this Court in Hasmat Rai and Anr. v.
Raghunath Prasad, AIR (1981) SC 1711 [1981] 3 SCR 605. In the meantime
interim stay of decree for possession was also granted. On January 3, 2000,
leave was granted, interim stay was ordered to be co.ntinued and hearing of
appeal was expedited. An appeal was placed for final hearing on September
G 5, 2002 and since none was present, it was dismissed for default. It was then
restored on February 17, 2003. On September 1, 2004, it was brought to the
notice of the court that the possession of the disputed premises was taken
over on October 22, 2002 after the appeal was dismissed for default and before
an order of restoration was passed. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to
obtain instructions. On September 29, 2004, when the matter was called out
H for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the possession
KEDAR NATH AGRA WAL v. DHANRAJI DEVI [THAKKER, J.] 427
was with the respondents, while the said statement was disputed by the A
learned counsel for the appellants.

We have heard the leaned counsel for both the parties.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Prescri\Jed
Authority under the Act has committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in B
ordering eviction against the appellants. According to the learned counsel,
it was not proved that the applicants bona fide required the property for
doing business as <1sserted by them. It was also submitted that irreparal:>le
hardship would be caused to the appellants-tenants if order of eviction would
be passed against them and on that ground also, no order could have been
passed by the authority. In any case, when both the applicant (husband and C
wife) died during the pendency of proceedings before the High Court, the
High Court was incumbent to consider the subsequent event and ought to
have dismissed the application filed by them. By not doing so, the High Court
has committed an illegality which deserves interference by this Court. It was
further contended that the High Court was under duty to consider the D
provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act and to decide whether
the legal representatives of the applicants were entitled to contest the \Hit
petition instituted by the petitioners-appellants. Regarding taking over
possession by the respondents during the pendency of the appeal before this
Court, it was submitted by the learned counsel that it is not correct and still
the appellants herein are in possession of the suit-shop. It was, therefore, E
prayed that appeal may be allowed and the order of eviction passed by the
Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the District Judge as well as by the
High Court may be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the F
orders passed by the courts below. It was submitted that after considering
the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, the Prescribed Authority
made an order in favour of the applicants which was confrrmed by the District
Judge and also by the High Court. The order was passed on the basis of the.
requirement when the application was instituted. It is settled law, submitted

- the counsel, that the relevant date for deciding the lis between the parties is G
the date of institution of suit/application and the High Court was wholly
justified in not entertaining an argument of the appellants for taking into
account subsequent events. The order, therefore, need not be interfered with ..

- It was also submitted that the appeal has become infructuous inasmuch as
the possession of the suit-shop has already been taken over by the H
428 SUPkEME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A respondents which is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents
as also from the photographs which have been produced before this Court.
It was, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered
the relevant provisions of law as also the decisions of this Court, in our
B opinion the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. So far as the finding
recorded by the Prescribed Authority under the Act as to bona fide requirement
of the applicants is concerned, in our opinion it is a pure finding of fact and
cannot be disturbed by this Court. Similarly, regarding comparative hardship,
the Prescribed Authority observed in the order that more hardship would be
C caused to the applicants if the order would not be passed in their favour than
the hardship which would be caused to the opponents if the order of eviction
would be passed against them. The said finding is also a finding of fact and
cannot be upset. Hence, on both this counts, we are unable to uphold the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellants.

D The question then remains as to effect of subsequent event. 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

E
were brought on record. It is also not in dispute that all the three daughters
are married and they are at their marital homes with their in-laws. In view of
the said fact an argument was advanced on behalf of the tenants before the
High Court that the said circumstance was an eloquent one and must be taken
..
into account which had occurred during the pendency of the proceedings
which would affect the final outcome. According to the tenants, in view of
death of both the applicants, the requirement as pleaded by the applicants
in the application did not survive and the application was liable to be rejected.
F It was the power and the duty of the High Court to ·take into account
subsequent event which emerged during the pendency of the writ petition
and pass an appropriate order taking into consideration such development.
In support of the said contention, reliance was placed by the learned counsel
on several decisions of this Court.

G Per contra, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the legality
and the validity of the decree or order passed by the Prescribed Authority
has to be tested on the basis of rights of the parties as stood at the time when
-
the application was filed. Subsequent event could not take away accrued and
vested right of the applicants.
-
H The High Court held that the objection raised by the heirs of applicants
KEDAR NATH AGRA WAL v. DHANRAJI DEVI [THAKKER, J.] 429
was well founded and the Court could not take into account the subsequent A
event of death of applicants during the pendency of writ petition. It was also
observed that a party could not be penalized for the delay in court and when
the order of eviction was legally passed in favour of the applicants, it could
not be set aside by considering the subsequent event of death of applicants .
..
The High Court also observed that the decisions cited on behalf of the B
writ petitioners wherein subsequent events were taken into account were in
appeals. According to the High Court, an appeal can be said to be a
'continuation of suit' but not a writ petition. It was observed that once the
case was decided by the Prescribed Authority and appeal was dismissed by
the District Judge, the High Court had no power to consider subsequent C
events in the proceedings under Article 226/227. of the Constitution and
accordingly it dismissed the writ petition.

In our opinion, by not taking into account the subsequent event, the
High Court has committed an error of law and also an error of jurisdiction.
In our judgment, the law is well settled on the point, and it is this: The basic D
rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the
date of institution of the suit or proceeding and the suit/action should be tried
at all stages on the cause of action as it existed at the commencement of the
suit/action. This, however, does not mean that events happening after
institution of a suit/proceeding, cannot be considered at all. It is the power
and duty of the court to consider changed circumstances. A court of law may E
take into account subsequent events inter alia in the following circumstances:

(i) The relief claimed originally has by reason of subsequent change.
of circumstances become inappropriate; or

(ii) It is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order to F
shorten litigation; or

(iii) It is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice between
the parties.

[Re: Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and G
Ors., [1974] 1SCC675 (1974] 3 SCR IOI.]

Let us consider relevant case law in this regard.

Before about a century in Ram Rattan v. Mohant Saha, (1907) 6 Cal LJ
74 : 11 Cal WN 732, the High Court of Calcutta observed that there are certain H
. 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A exceptions to the general rule that a suit must be tried in all stages on the
cause of action as it existed at the date of its commencement. In Lachmeshwar
Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Choudhury, (1940) FCR 84: AIR (1941) FC 5,
the Federal Court took into account the provisions of the new Act which
came into force during the pendency of appeal before the Federal Court.

B In the leading decision of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and
General Traders, [1975] I SCC 770: AIR (1975) SC 1409: [1975] 3 SCR 958, this
Court considered a subsequent event. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession
on the ground of personal requirement for starting business and an order was
passed in his favour. An appeal against the said order was also dismissed.
C The tenant filed a revision petition in the High Court. During the pendency
of revision petition, the plaintiff acquired possession of another non-residential
building. An application for amendment, therefore, was made by the tenant.
The High Court allowed the amendment. The landlord challenged the order
in this Court. It was contended by the landlord that the High Court had
committed an error in taking cognizance of subsequent event which was
D 'disastrous'. This Court, however, held that the High Court did not commit
any illegality in considering the subsequent event.

Following Lachmeshwar Prasad, law of'ancient vintage', Krishna Iyer,
J. stated:

E "We feel the submissions devoid of substance. First about the
jurisdiction and propriety vis-a-vis circumstances which come into
being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It - is
basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be
judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding.
Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not
F the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the /is has
come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or
the manner of moulding it is brought diligently to the notice of the
tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or
render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of
G procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is not violated, with
a view to promote substantial justice subject, of course, to the absence
of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we
contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts
to confine it to the trial Court. If the litigation pends, the power exists,
absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in
H
KEDAR NATH AGRA WAL v. DHANRAH DEVI [THAKKER, J.] 431

law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for A
applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition
that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and
meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current
realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious
cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution B
of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are
scrupulously obeyed" (Emphasis supplied)

Pasupu/eti Venkateswarlu was followed in many cas~s. In Gulabbai v.
Na/in Narsi Vohra and Ors., (1991] 3 SCC 483 AIR (1991) SC 1760, an order
of eviction was passed against the tenant on the ground of bona fide need c
of the landlord. Subsequent event of shifting family of the landlord to a
spacious bungalow constructed by him during the pendency of appeal, was
considered by this Court.

In Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, [ 1992] Supp 2 SCC 623 AIR (1992) SC
700, this Court observed that a court can mould relief taking 'cautious D
cognizance' of subsequent events. The Court also observed that all these
depend on factual and situational differences and 'there can be no hard and
fast rule governing the matter'.

In Shadi Singh v. Rakha, (1992] 3 SCC 55 AIR (1994) SC 800, a landlord
sued a tenant for ejectment on the ground that the building required thorough E
repair. During the pendency of the suit, the tenant carried out necessary
repair. Taking note of the event, this Court dismissed the suit of the landlord.

In Super Forgings and Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd v. Thyabal/y Rasu/jee
(Dead) Through LRs, (1995] I SCC 410, dealing with power of this Court to
take note of subsequent events in an appeal under Article 136 of the F
Constitution, this Court stated that "the power of this Court in an appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution to take cautious cognizance of events
and developments subsequent to institution of eviction proceedings and
grant, deny or mould the relief sought by a party, in consonance with justice
and fair play is not restricted merely because it is exercising its power to deal G.
with an appeal conferred upon it by the Constitution."
.. In P. Sriramamurthy v. Vasantha Raman (Mrs), (1997] 9 SCC 654: AIR
(1997) SC 1388, an order of eviction was passed in favour of landlord and
against tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. During the pendency
of appeal before this Court, husband of the landlady retired from service and H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A they needed the premises for personal occupation also. Though the ground
was not set up earlier, taking note of subsequent event, this Court allowed
the ground to be raised and granted the relief.

In Lekh Raj v. Muni Lal and Ors., (2001] 2 SCC 762 AIR (2001) SC 996,
this Court indicated that the law on the subject is well settled. The court
B should not shut its door in noticing subsequent events. All laws and procedures
including functioning of courts are all in aid to confer justice who knock its
door. The court should interpret the law not in derogation of justice but in
its aid. Bringing on record subsequent event, which is relevant, should,

C
therefore, be pennitted to be brought on record to render justice to a party.
But the court in doing so should be cautious not to permit it in a routine
manner. It should refuse the prayer where party is doing so to delay the
proceedings and to harass the other party or doing so for any other ulterior
-
motive. The court should also examine whether the alleged subsequent event
has any material bearing on issues involved or would materially affect the
result of the suit.
D
In Om Prakash Gupta v.Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002] 2 SCC 256: AIR (2002)
SC 665, this Court stated: "The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of
the parties stand crystallized on the date of the institution of the suit and,
therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as
they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power
E to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject
to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed
originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or
cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed
circumstances would shorten litigation and, enable complete justice being
F done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the
notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural
law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise."

Strong reliance was placed by the contesting respondents on a decision
of this Court in Rameshwar and Ors. v. Jot Ram and Anr, (1976] 1 SCC 194:
G (1976] 1 SCR 847, before the High Court as well as before us. In Rameshwar,
the tenant had become 'deemed purchaser' under the Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Act, 1953. During the pendency of appeal, the 'large' land owner died
and his heirs became 'small' land owners. It was, therefore, contended on
behalf of the land owners in appeal that since appeal is continuation of suit,
-
H subsequent event of death of the original owner should be considered. This
KEDARNATHAGRAWALv. DHANRAJI DEVI [THAKKER,J.] 433

. Court, however, refused to take note of subsequent event on equitable A
considerations. Keeping in view the agrarian reforms, this Court said: "To
hold that, if the landlord dies at some distant date after the title has vested
in the tenant, the statutory process would be reversed if by such death, his
many children, on division, will be converted into small landholders, is to
upset the day of reckoning visualized by the Act and to make· the vesting
provision 'a teasing illusion', a formal festschrift to agrarian reform, not a B
flaming programme of 'now and here'. These surrounding facts drive home
the need not to allow futurism, in a dawdling litigative scene, to foul the
quick legislative goals." (emphasis supplied)

In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, [2001] 2 SCC 604 : AIR (2001) C
SC 803, an eviction petition was filed in 1978 by the landlord on the ground
of bona fide need for the use as a clinic by his son. The petition was allowt;d
by the Rent Controller in 1982 and the order was confirmed by the Appellate
Authority in 1985. During the pendency of the petition in the High Cout;t,
however, the son joined medical service. Relying on the said development, it
was contended by the tenant before the High Court that the landlord was no D
more in need of the premises and the petition was liable to be dismissed. The
High Court dismissed the revision petition. The aggrieved tenant approached
this Court. It was contended on behalf of the tenant that a subsequent
development could not have been ignored by the High Court, particularly
when the eviction was sought for personal use and the need no more continued E
in view of acceptance of service by the son of the landlord. This Court,
however, negatived the contention and stated:

"We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the
bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his
application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility F
for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every
subsequent development during the post-petition period is to be
taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement
pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long a~
the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow-process system
subsists. During 23 years, after the landlord moved for eviction on the G
ground that his son needed the building, neither the landlord nor his
son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining
any new assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril
of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. It is a stark reality
that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R,

A number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum.
If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on
that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the
building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by
subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of
the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its
B surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed
is to erase the patina and see the gloss. It is pernicious, and we may
say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his
reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the
litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred
c pendent lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the
matter for such unduly long period."

We must now refer to Hasmat Rai. As already noted, notice was issued
by this Court on October 29, 1999 in view of the decision of this Court in
Hasmat Rai. In the said decision, three Judge Bench .of this Court held that
D when eviction was sought on the ground of personal requirement of landlord,
such requirement must continue to exist till the final determination of the case.
Following the ratio laid down in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu, Desai· J. stated;
"It is now convertible that where possession is sought/or personal
requirement, it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the
E landlord must not only exist on the date of the action bu( also subsist till
the final decree or order for eviction is made. If in the meantime events have
crept up which would show that the requirement of the landlord is wholly
satisfied then in that case his action must fail and in such a situation it is not
incorrect to say that such decree or order for evictiOn is passed against the
tenant, he cannot invite the Court to take into consideration the subsequent
F events." (emphasis supplied)

In view of the settled legal position as also the decisions inPasupuleti
Venkateswarlu and Hasmat Rai, in our opinion, the High Court was in error
in not considering the subsequent event of death of both the applicants. In
our view, it was power as well as the duty of the High Court to consider the
G fact of death of the applicants during the pendency of the writ petition. Since
it was the case of the tenant that all the three daughters got married and were
staying with their in-laws, obviously, the said fact was relevant an~ material.
The ratio laid down by this Court in Rameshwar, would not apply to the facts
-
of this case as it related to agrarian reforms. Likewise, Gaya Prasad, does not
H carry the matter further. There during tlie pendency of proceedings the son
•
-·
KEDAR NATH AGRAWAL v. DHANRAJI DEVI [fHAKKER, J.] 435
•. for whom requirement was sought had joined Government Service. In the A
instant case, the requirement was for the applicants, who died during the
pendency of writ petition. Gaya Prasad is thus clearly distinguishable.

There is yet another reason on which the order passed by the High
Court is liable to be set aside. As stated earlier, notice was issued by this
Court on October 29, 1999 in view of provisions of sub-section (7) of Section B
21 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of the said section enables the landlord to get
possession of the tenanted properly on certain grounds. One of such grounds
is. bona fide requirement by the landlord for residential purposes .or for
. purposes of any profession, trade or calling. Sub-section (l) has to be read
with sub-section (7) of Section 21. The relevant part of Section 21 reads as
• 0 C
under;

"21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation oftenant.-
(1) The Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord
in that behalf order the eviction of a tenant from the building under
tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the , D
following grounds exists, namely

(a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing
form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord
for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any
person whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential E
purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade, or calling,
or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable
trust, for the objects of the trust ;

F
(7) Where during the pendency of an application under clause (a) of
sub-section (l ), the landlord dies, his legal representatives shall be
entitled to prosecute such application further on the basis of their
own need in substitution of the need of the deceased. "

Conjoint reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (7) of G
Section 21 makes it clear that where the possession is sought by the,)andlord
on the ground of bona fide requirement and during the pendency of the
application, the landlord dies, his legal representatives can prosecute such
application on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the
deceased.
H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A In the light of decisions referred to by us, particularly in Hasmac Rai
and the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act, the High Court
has to consider the matter and record a finding.

For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting
aside the order passed by the High Court. The matter is remitted to the High
B Court with a direction that the High Court shall consider the subsequent
event of death of both the applicants and also the iJrovisions of sub-section
(7) of Section 21 of the Act in the light of observations made hereinabove
and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

Regarding possession, as already noted earlier, according to respondents,
C after the dismissal of the appeal in default and before restoration, they have
already taken over p_ossession of the shop. According to the appellants,
however, possession has remained with them. We express no opinion. When
we are remitting the matter to the High Court with a direction that the High
Court will decide the matter afresh according to law, appropriate order will be
D passed in consonance with the final decision by the High Court. Till then
status quo as of today shall continue. There shall be no order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.