RAM KUMAR BARNWAL versus RAM LAKHAN (DEAD)

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 14-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM KUMAR BARNWAL 
v. 
RAM LAKHAN (DEAD) 
MAY 14, 2007 
B 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.) 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, 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 B 
mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions 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 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 D 
Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, (1992) Supp. 2 SCC 623, relied on. 
~ 
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

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