OM PRAKASH GUPTA versus RANBIR B. GOYAL

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 18-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
OM PRAKASH GUPTA 
A 
v. 
RA NB IR B. GOY AL 
JANUARY 18, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 6, Rule 17-Subsequent events-Amendment of pleadings, to take 
cognizance of-Held, subsequent event may be one of change in law or founded C 
on facts-Court may take judicial notice of the change in law and modify or 
mould the course of litigation or relief to bring it in conformity with /aw--
Where party relies on subsequent event based on facts, it should seek 
amendment of pleadings and Court may permit such amendment-Jn the instant 
case, the subsequent event being a factual event, cannot be taken cognizance D 
of as brought to notice of Court in accordance with established rules of 
procedure-Judicial notice. 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Eviction by title paramount-Reliance of-Tenant evicted from the suit E 
premises of a//ottee-Subseqently, on non-payment of instalments by a//ottee, 
order of resumption passed, which was later set aside-Held, as the proceedings 
initiated by the Development Authority against the a//ottee has not achieved 
\ 
finality, eviction by title paramount cannot be relied on. 
Respondent-allottee was allotted the suit premises by Haryana Urban p 
Development Authority on instalments, which was let out to appellant-
tenant who fell into arrears. Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction. High 
Court dismissed the appeals, but granted time for vacating the premises. 
Appellant, then filed Special Leave Petition before this Court. He later 
filed an application before the High Court seeking extension of time for 
vacating the premises on the grounds that SLP was yet to be taken up for G 
hearing and HUDA had initiated proceedings for resumption of the suit 
premises against the respondent. The application was allowed. Thereafter, 
this Court granted interim relief to the appellant although the factum of 
extension of time granted by the High Court and the grounds therefor were 
not brought to the notice of this Court. Respondent brought these facts H 
359 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002] I S.C.R. 
A to the notice of this Court through counter affidavit. Appellant filed 
additional affidavit stating that after the filing of SLP in this Court he 
received notice from HUDA to vacate the suit premises. He then requested 
HUDA to allot the premises to him. In between HUDA set aside the order 
of resumption against allottee. 
B 
Appellant contended before this Court that there has been a 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
subsequent event having a material bearing on the judgment under appeal 
and the right of the respondent to decree. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. A tenant inducted into possession of the tenancy premises 
is ordinarily bound to restore possession over the tenancy premises to the 
landlord on the tenancy coming to an end. Such obligation comes to an 
end either by actually fulfilling the obligation or by proving that the 
landlord's title stands extinguished by the landlord's eviction by title 
paramount. The burden of proving eviction by title paramount lies on the 
party who sets up such defence. 1365-CI 
2. Appellant-tenant is not entitled to any relief for setting aside of 
the decree for eviction. Firstly, there is neither any order of resumption 
and forfeiture within the meaning of Section 17 of the Haryana Urban 
Development Authority Act passed by HUDA against the respondent nor 
is there an allotment by HUDA directly in favour of the appellant. In view 
of HUDA's order of resumption having been set aside by the Appellate 
Authority under the Act the allotment made by HUDA in favour of the 
respondent continues to subsist. His title, under which he had inducted 
the appellant in possession of the suit premisi:s, has not come to an end. 
Secondly, the appellant is placing reliance on an event happening after 
the institution of suit, i.e., a subsequent event and a case for taking notice 
of such subsequent event by court so as to impair the judgment under 
appeal, is not made out. 1366-G-Hl 
Vashu Dev v. Bal Kishan, 120021 I SCR 171, relied on. 
3.1. 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, Court has power to take 
note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the 
.., .. 
... 
.i..

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