LexKEDAR NATH AGRAWAL (DEAD) AND ANR. versus DHANRAJI DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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 of Letting, 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 of suit, 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 subse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.