HUKUM CHANDRA (D) THR. LRS. versus NEMI CHAND JAIN & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 14-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
909
HUKUM CHANDRA (D) THR. LRS.
v.
NEMI CHAND JAIN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3827 of 2014)
DECEMBER 14, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961:
s.12(1)(f) – Eviction from shop on the ground of bonafide need –
Eviction suit filed by respondent-landlord on the ground of bonafide
requirement to settle his son – Trial court dismissed the suit –
However, first appellate court as well as High Court held that
landlord had established bonafide requirement for establishing
business of his son – In the instant appeal, contention of tenant
was that the son of the landlord was already in the business of
utensils from the shop in the same building and this aspect was not
considered by High Court and that High Court also failed to consider
the additional evidence adduced by appellant that another tenant
had vacated the shop occupied by him, and the same was available
for son of respondent – Held: Mere fact that the son of the landlord
for whose requirement instant suit was filed  was involved in the
business of utensils would not render bona fide need for the premises
as doubtful – It is not expected that the landlord’s son would sit idle
without doing any work till the eviction petition is decided – If there
is categorical averment by the respondent that the premises is
required for his son, his engaging in the business of utensils in the
meanwhile, would not be a ground to deny decree for eviction –
Further, vacation of another shop by another tenant and owned by
the landlord cannot be said to be available to respondent’s son as
the same was vacated for the bona fide requirement of another son
– Rent Control and Eviction.
Subsequent event: Rights of the parties stand crystallised on
the date of institution of the suit – However, in appropriate cases,
court can take note of all the subsequent events – The normal rule
is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are
adjudicated upon as they obtained at the commencement of the
litigation – Whenever, there is subsequent events of fact or law,
which have a material bearing on the rights of the parties to relief
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 909
909
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
or on the aspects of moulding appropriate relief to the parties, the
court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the subsequent
changes of fact and law to mould the relief.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the
date of institution of the suit. However, in appropriate cases, court
can take note of all the subsequent events. The normal rule is
that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are
adjudicated upon as they obtained at the commencement of the
litigation. Whenever, there is subsequent events of fact or law,
which have a material bearing on the rights of the parties to relief
or on the aspects of moulding appropriate relief to the parties,
the court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the
subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief. The shop
vacated by other tenant is for the bona fide requirement of
respondent-landlord’s another son. In that view of the matter,
the court would not be justified in taking notice of such a
subsequent fact sought to be projected by the appellant to oppose
the relief granted by the courts below. In the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, the subsequent event relied
upon by the appellant-tenant cannot be taken cognizance.
Respondent-landlord has four sons and the other shop vacated
by tenant was meant for the bona fide requirement of another
son. If that shop is not actually occupied by the other son, the
other tenant has a right to initiate the proceedings against the
landlord for his re-entry in the said adjacent shop in terms of the
provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot
be said that alternative accommodation was available for the
respondent-landlord’s son due to vacation of the said adjacent
shop by another tenant. [Paras 15, 16, 18, 19][917-D; 918-D-E,
H; 919-A-B, D]
Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal (2002) 2 SCC
256 : [2002] 1 SCR 359 ; Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram
(1992) Supp 2 SCC 623 ; Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep
Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 : [2001] 1 SCR 923  –
relied on
2. The High Court rightly held that there was no ground to
entertain the additional documents and no substantial question
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
911
of law arose.  The first

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.