JAI PRAKASH GUPTA (D) THR. LRS. versus RIYAZ AHAMAD & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 28-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 525 
JAi PRAKASH GUPTA (D) THR. LRS. 
A 
v. 
RIYAZ AHAMAD & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7207 of 2009) 
OCTOBER 28, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
-~ 
U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & 
Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) - s. 21(1)(a) -
Application for release of shop by landlord on the ground of c 
bonafide need of his son - Allowed by appellate court -
During pendency of writ petition by te'nant, subsequent 
development of facts - High Court remanding the case to 
appellate court for fresh consideration - Justification of- Held: 
~ 
Not justified - Writ court could not consider the effect of the 
D 
subsequent developments on the bonafide need of landlord 
'f 
as well as comparative hardship of parties on material facts, 
without proper evidence on record -
Application for 
amendment of release application to be filed - In view of long 
pendency, writ petition restored - High Court to decide the 
E 
matter on the basis of the evidence and the findings by 
appellate court on the limited issue - Subsequent events. 
1 
Subsequent events - When relevant - Held: Subsequent 
~ 
developments of fact or law which have a material bearing on 
F 
the entitlement of the parties to relief are relevant, at any stage 
of the proceeding. 
The original landlord-father of the appellant filed 
application for release of the shop on the ground that he 
required the shop to use it as an office space to establlsh 
G 
the appellant; and that the tenant would not suffer 
,.., 
hardship. The Prescribed Authority rejected the 
application. However, the appellate authority allowed the 
same. Tenant filed writ petition. During the pendency, the 
525 
H 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A original landlord died and legal representatives were 
substituted. The original landlord's wife and the father of 
lt. 
... _
l 
the tenant also expired. Tenant filed a supplementary 
• 
affidavit that after the death of the original landlord, the 
' -
appellant inherited all his residential and commercial 
B property, thus, the need of the landlord became fully 
satisfied. The appellant filed counter affidavit that In 15 
years of litigation his bonafide requirement increased; 
and that after the death of the father of the tenant, the 
tenant inherited a house. High Court set aside the 
,,..-
c judgment of the appellate court in view of the subsequent 
developments and remanded the case back for disposal 
to the appellate court to consider the effect of such 
subsequent developments on the bonafide need of the 
appellant and also on the question of comparative 
~ 
D hardship of the parties. Hence the present appeal. 
f 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
-1'" 
HELD: 1.1. A suit or an original proceeding is to be 
tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed 
E on the date of its commencement. The only exception to 
this rule is that a Court may take notice of events, which 
have happened since the institution of the suit or the 
original proceeding and grant relief to the parties on the 
~ 
basis of the altered conditions, is applied in cases where 
-?-
F it is shown that the original relief claimed has, by reason 
of subsequent change of circumstances, become 
.... 
inappropriate or that it is necessary to base the decision 
of the Court on the altered circumstances in order to 
shorten litigation or to do complete justice between the 
)-
G parties. [Para 16] [536-H; 537-A] 
1.2. Subsequent developments 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, even at any stage of the 
H 
....
< . 
; .. ., 
( 
'f 
JAi PRAKASH GUPTA (D) THR. LRS. v. RIYAZ 
527 
AHAMAD & ANR. 
proceeding, is not precluded from taking a cautious A 
cognizance of the subsequent developments of fact and 
law to mould the relief. Keeping these principles in mind 
and considering the nature of subsequent developments 
as brought out by the parties during the pendency of the 
writ petition, a solutio.n within the scope of this exception s 
is to be found out. Therefore, the test Is whether the 
subsequent events of fact have a material bearing dn the 
entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which 
bear on the moulding of the relief awarded before 
consideration of such subsequent events. [Para 21][538· c 
F-H; 539-A] 
Rai Chand Manda/ and Anr. vs. Biswa Nath Manda

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