Holding

The High Court was not justified in summarily dismissing the writ petition; the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, affirming that courts may take note of subsequent events when the prescribed conditions are met.

Summary

The appellant, a landlord, filed a release petition under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Prescribed Authority, on the Commissioner’s report, held the petition non‑maintainable and the First Appellate Authority upheld that order. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, alleging that during the pendency he had been evicted from another shop and faced hardship, a subsequent event. The High Court dismissed the writ, directing the matter back to the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the release application was filed decades earlier and the appellant’s need had changed, granting liberty to file a fresh application. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in disposing of the writ summarily; courts may consider subsequent events if they meet established conditions, and the case must be remanded for fresh consideration. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter remanded to the High Court.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition can be dismissed and remanded to a prescribed authority solely on the basis of the lapse of time and alleged change in hardship without adjudicating the merits.
Whether subsequent events or changed circumstances occurring during the pendency of proceedings can be taken into account to mould relief under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building Act.
Whether the conditions laid down in precedent for considering subsequent events are satisfied in the present case.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 21, s. 2(l)(a), s. 30

Subjects

release petitionsubsequent eventslandlord-tenant disputeUttar Pradesh Urban Building ActSection 21Civil ProcedureAppellate jurisdictionEquityArticle 226writ petition

Judgment

A RAM KUMAR BARNWAL
v.
RAM LAKHAN (DEAD)

MAY 14, 2007

B [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.)

Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation ofLetting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972-s.2 I-Release petition under, by landlord-Appellant-Dismissed
by Prescribed Authority under the Act-Order upheld by Appellate Court -
C Writ petition before High Court, during pendency of which, landlord pointed
out a subsequent event/changed circumstance-High Court held that even if
it is found that the decisions of Courts below were erroneous in law, the
matter needed to be remanded to the Prescribed Authority as the release
application was filed long back and bona fide need and comparative hardship
D had changed by passage of time-Writ petition was dismissed and the landlord
was given liberty to file fresh release application-Held: The approach of
High Court was clearly erroneous-High Court not justified in disposing of
the writ petition in a summG1y fashion-Matter remanded to it for fresh
consideration-Civil Procedure-Subsequent events during pendency of
IS proceedings-Relevance of-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226.

Appellant claiming to be landlord in respect of the disputed shop filed a
release petition under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Prescribed
Authority, on basis of the report of the Commissioner, who was appointed to
p make inspection of the premises, held that the petition was not maintainable.
The First Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Prescribed Authority.
Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, during pendency of which,
Appellant brought to the notice of the High Court a subsequent event/changed
circumstance. The High Court held that even if it is found that the decisions
of the Courts below are erroneous in law, the matter needed to be remanded
G to the Prescribed Authority as the release application was filed quarter of a
century ago, and bona fide need and comparative hardship had changed by the
passage of time. The writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the
Appellant to file fresh release application. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
576
RAMKUMARBARNWALv. RAM LAKHAN (DEAD) [PASAYAT,J.] 577

..... ).-- HELD:l. The question relating to relevance of subsequent events during A
pendency of proceedings has been examined by this Court in many cases. The
ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystalised 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 to take note of subsequent events and
mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being
B
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 done to the parties; (iii) that such subsequent
event is brought to the notice of the Court promptly and in accordance with c
the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise.
(Para 9) [581-E, F, G]

Pasupu/eti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1
SCC 770; Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256 and
Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, (1992) Supp. 2 SCC 623, relied on. D

~
2. The High Court was not justified in disposing of the writ petition in
a summary fashion. The matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh
consideration keeping in view the principles set out above in the background
facts. [Para 11] [585-C]
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2480 of2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2004 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. 'Vrit Petition No. 9701 of 1983.

Jaspal Singh, Imtiaz Ahmad, Naghma Imtiaz, Abhishek Anand and V.N.
F
Raghupathy for the Appellant.

Rajiv Talwar for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned
...... ).- Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. By the impugned judgment the
High Court came to the conclusion that even if it is found that the decisions
'-- H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A of the Courts below are erroneous in law, the matter needs to be remanded -.I ....
to the prescribed authority. A release petition was filed by the appellant
claiming to be the landlord under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the
'Act').

B 3. The background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

Appellant is the owner and the landlord in respect of disputed shop
situated in Moha11a Asifganj, Azamgarh City, Uttar Pradesh. Jn the year
1947 respondent no. 1 Ram Lakhan was inducted as a tenant in the shop in
C question on monthly rent of Rs.40/- by the then owner. In the year 1952
the disputed shop was purchased by the appellant's mother Smt. Pyari
Kunwar. After the death of his mother, appellant became owner of the
property. Family of the appe11ant at that time was very small. Since appellant
had no commercial space available he was carrying on business in a shop
belonging to one Shri Jagannath which he had taken on rent. During the
D pendency of the case before the High Court, the appe11ant was evicted from
the said shop and he has no other premises to carry on the business.
Appe11ant has three sons. Aprut from the disputed shop, the appellant had
another small shop adjacent to it. As appellant's son Asthbujhi Prasad
wanted to carry on business the said shop is being used by him. Appe11ant's
E two other sons are unemployed and one of them has completed Chartered
Accountancy course. Due to non-availability of commercial space, the said
son Kameshewar Prasad had to set up his office at a distance of I00 Kms.
Since respondent no. I was repeatedly committing default in payment of rent
to the mother of the appe11ant, a suit had been filed (Suit no. 23 of 1970)
for ejectment of respondent no. I on the ground of default. Though suit
F was decreed upto second appeal stage, in appeal the order of ejectment
was set aside by this Court by judgment dated 30.11.1976, as respondent
no. I had started depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act. In 1980,
appellant moved an application under Section 2l(l)(a) of the Act. The same
was resisted by the respondent. The Prescribed Authority on the report
G of the Commissioner, who was appointed to make inspection of the premises,
held that the eviction petition was not maintainable. The First Appe11ant
Authority upheld the order of rejection by the Prescribed Authority.
Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning correctness
of the judgment and order datei:I 22.4.1983 of the Appellate Authority
affirming order of the Prescribed Authority. Appe11ant brought to the notice
H of the High Court that he had been evicted from the tenanted premises
RAMKUMARBARNWALv. RAMLAKHAN (DEAD) (PASAYAT, J.) 579
...,, )..'
where he was carrying on business and, therefore, he was left with no A
accommodation to earn his livelihood. The High Court, as noted supra, held
that even if it is found that the findings of the courts below are erroneous
in law the matter has remanded to the Prescribed Authority as the release
application was filed quarter of century ago, and bona fide need, and
comparative hardship change by the passage of time. The writ petition was
dismissed granting liberty to the appellant to file fresh release application.
B

~ 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the
--../, High Court is clearly erroneous. It is settled position in law that subsequent
events can be taken note of. The High Court, even though referred to the
relevance of the subsequent events erroneously came to the conclusion that
even if the judgment and order passed by the courts below are erroneous in
c
law, the matter will have to be remanded to the Prescribed Authority. There
is no such requirement in law. In fact, after noticing that the release application
was filed about quarter of century back, it is really unfortunate that the High
Court instead of deciding the matter dismissed the writ petition granting
liberty to file fresh release application. In other words, instead of shortening D
-< litigation the High Court's order would mean unnecessary prolongation of
litigation.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the
orders of the High Court and the courts below.
E
6. It is to be noted that the original tenant has expired during the
pendency of the proceedings before this Court and the legal heirs have been
substituted in terms of this Court's 16.8.2005 passed in I.A. No.3.

7. The question relating to relevanc ~ of subsequent events during
·-y pendency of proceedings has been examined by this Court in many cases. F
'
8. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, (1975]
I SCC 770 it was observed as follows:

"3. Two submissions were advanced by Sri K. S. Ramamurthy to
salvage his client's case. He argued that it was illegal for the High G
Court to have taken cognizance of subsequent events, disastrous as
__, they proved to be. Secondly, he urged that once the High Court held-
)..
as it did- that the appellate tribunal acted illegally in remitting the
whole case to the Rent Controller, it could not go further to dismiss
his whole eviction proceedings, a misfortune heavier than would have H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.
~ ,._
A been, had he not moved the High Court at all.

4. 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
B 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
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
c render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of
procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is 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 imy limitation on this power to take note of updated facts
D to confine it to the trial court. If the litigation pends, the power exists,
absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in
law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for >-
applications of this equitable rule are myraid. 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
E realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious
cognizance of events and developments (subsequent to the institution
of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are
scrupulously obeyed. On both occasions the High Court, in revision,
correctly took this view. The: later recovery of another accommodation
F by the landlord, during the pendency of the case, has as the High
Court twice pointed out, a material bearing on the right to evict in -<"
view of the inhibition writte:n into Section 10(3)(iii) itself. We are not
disposed to disturb this approach in law or finding of fact.

5. The law we have set out is of ancient vintage. We will merely refer
G to Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri, AIR
(1941) FC 5 which is a leading case on the point. Gwyer C.J ., in the
above case, referred to the rule adopted by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Patterson v. State of Alabama, (294 U.S. 600, 607):
~ -
We have frequently held that in the exercise of our appellate
H jurisdiction we have power not only to correct error in the judgment
RAM KUMARBARNWALv. RAM LAKHAN (DEAD) [PASAYAT,J.] 581

~ y under review but to make such disposition of the case as justice A·
requires. And in determining what justice does require, the Court
is bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which
has supervened since the judgment was entered.

and said that that view of the Court's powers was reaffirmed once
again in the then recent case of Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 B
U.S. 551, 555. Sulaiman J., in the same case (AIR 1941 FC 5) relied on
English cases and took the view that an appeal is by way of a re-
hearing and the Court may make such order as the Judge of the first
-~
.--( instance could have made if the case had been heard by him at the
date on which the appeal was heard, (emphasis, ours). Varadachariar
J., dealt with the same point a little more comprehensively. We may c
content ourselves with excerpting one passage which brings out the
point luminously (at p. 103) :
It is also on the theory of an appeal being in the nature of a re-
hearing that the courts in this country have in numerous cases
recognized that in moulding the relief to be granted in a case on D
appeal, the court of appeal is entitled to take into account even
-......:· facts and events which have come into existence after the decree
appealed against."

9. To similar effect is the decision of this Court in Om Prakash Gupta
v. Ranhir B. Goyal, [2002] 2 SCC 256). It was, inter alia, observed in that case
E
as follows:

"11. The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand
crystalised 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
F
stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power
to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly
subject to the following conditionf. 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 G
and enable complete justice being done to the parties; (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. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The
Motor & General Traders, (1975] I SCC 770, this Court held that a
"-.
H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A fact arising after the lis, coming to the notice of the Court and having
a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding
it and brought diligently to the notice of the Court cannot be blinked
"" ...
at. The Court may in such cases bend the rules of procedure if no
specific provision of law or rule of fairplay is violated for it would
promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other
B disentitling factors or just circumstances. The court speaking through
Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition that court can, so long as the
litigation pends, take not of updated facts to promote substantial
justice. However, the court cautioned: (i) the event should be one as
would stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. (ii) rules of procedure
,.
c may be bent if no specific provision or fairplay is violated and there
is no other special circumstance repelling resort to that course in law
or justice, (iii) such cognizance of subsequent events and developments
should be cautious, and (iv) the rules of fairness to both sides should
be scrupulously obeyed. '

D 12. Such subsequent event may be one purely of law or founded on
facts. In the former case, the Court may take judicial notice of the
event and before acting thereon put the parties on the notice of how
the change in law is going to affect the rights and obligations of the >-
parties and modify or mould the course of litigation or the relief so
as to bring it in conformity with the law. In the latter case, the party
E relying on the subsequent event, which consists of facts not beyond
pale of controversy either as to their existence or in their impact, is
expected to have resort to amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule
17 of the CPC. Such subsequent event the Court may permit being
introduced into the pleadings by way of amendment as it would be
F necessary to do so for the purpose of determining real questions in
controversy between the parties. In Trojan & Co. v. RMN.N. Nagappa
Chettiar, AIR (1953) SC 235 this Court has held that the decision of
a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the
parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found; without the
amendment of the pleading the Court would not be entitled to modify
G or alter the relief. In Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho and
Ors., ( 1898) 25 Indian Appeals 195 (PC), their Lordships observed that,
as a rule, relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted.,

13. Power of the Court to take note of subsequent events, special\y ·
at the appellate stage, came up for consideration of a Full Bench of
.J -
H
RAM KUMAR BARNWAL v. RAM LAKHAN (DEAD)[PASAYAT, J.] 583

y Nagpur High Court presided over by Justice Sinha (as His Lordship A
then was) in Chhote Khan v. Mohammad Obedalla Khan, AIR (1953)
Nag 361. Hidayatullah, J. (as His Lordship then was) held, on a review
of judicial opinion, that an action must be tried in all its stages on the
cause of action as it existed at the commencement of an action. No
doubt, Courts 'can' and sometimes 'must' take notice of subsequent
events, but that is done merely 'inter partes' to shorten litigation but B
not to give to a defendant an advantage because a third party has
acquired the right of the plaintiff. The doctrine itself is of an exceptional
-~. character only to be used in very special circumstances. It is all the
more strictly applied in those cases where there is a judgment under
appeal. His Lordship quoted the statement of law made by Sir Asutosh c
Mookerjee, J. in a series of cases that merely because the plaintiff
loses his title 'pendente lite' is no reason for allowing his advers~ry
to win if the corresponding right has not vested in the adversary but
in a third party. In the case at hand, the defendant-appellant has
simply stated the factum of proceedings initiated by HUDA against
the plaintiff-respondent in an affidavit very casually filed by him. He D
has not even made a prayer to the Court to take notice of such
~- subsequent event and mould the relief accordingly, or to deny the
... relief to the plaintiff-respondent as allowed to him by the judgment
under appeal, much less sought for an amendment of the pleadings.
The subsequent event urged by the defendant-appellant is basically E
a factual event and cannot be taken cognizance unless brought to the
notice of the Court in accordance with established rules of procedure
which if done would have afforded the plaintiff-respondent an
opportunity of meeting the case now sought to be set up by the
appellant. We do not think this Court would be justified in taking
notice of a fact sought to be projected by the appellant in a very F
y· cavalier manner. The fact remains that the present one is a landlord-
tenant dispute and we cannot upset the relief granted by the courts
below and the High Court to the plaintiff-respondent by relying on the
doctrine of eviction by title paramount as it cannot be said that the
proceedings initiated by HUDA against the plaintiff-respondent have
G
achieved a finality or are such proceeding wherein the plaintiff-
respondent cannot possibly have any sustainable defence."

10. Earlier in Ramesh Kumar v. Kesha Ram, [1992] Supp. 2 SCC 623, it
was held as follows:
H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 6 S.C.R.

A "6. The nonnal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations
of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement
of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent
events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement
of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of
the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a 'cautious
B cognizance' of the subs,equent changes of fact and law to mould the
relief. In lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri,
AIR (1941) FC 5 Chief Justice Sir Maurice Gwyer observed: (AIR p.6):
"But with regard to the question whether the court is entitled to
take into account legislative changes since the decision under
c appeal was given, I desire to point out that the rule adopted by
the Supreme Court of the United States is the same as that which
I think commends itself to all three members of this Court. In
Patterson v. State of Alabama, (1934) 294 US 600, Hughes C.J.
said:
D 'We have frequently held that in the exercise of our
appellate jurisdiction we have power not only to correct
error in the judgment under review but to make such
disposition of the case as justice requires. And in
detennining what justice does require, the court is bound
E to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which
has supervened since the judgment was entered'.

And in Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu v. The Motor & General Traders,
[1975] l SCC 770 Justice Krishna Iyer said: (SCC p. 772, para 4).

"We feel the submissions devoid of substance. First about
F 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
G principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress
of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis 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.
H
RAMKUMARBARNWALv. RAMLAKHAN (DEAD) [PASAYAT, J.) 585
Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no A
specific provision or fairplay is 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 B
repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on
> this point are legion, even as situations for applications of
this equitable rule are myraid."

11. Above being the position the High Court was not justified in C
disposing of the writ petition in a summary fashion. We accordingly set aside
the order of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter to the High Court
for fresh consideration keeping in view the principles set out above in the
background facts. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the
High Court to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. D
°"\ 12. The appeal is allowed fo the aforesaid extent. No costs.

B.BB. Appeal Partly allowed.