RAM NIBAS GAGAR (DEAD) BY LRS. versus DEBOJYOTI DAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 04-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM NIBAS GAGAR (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
DEBOJYOTI DAS AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, I 972: 
S.5 (I)(c)-Subsequent event-Suit for eviction-Decreed-Appeal by 
tenant-Pending appeals before first appellate court and Supreme Court tenant C 
filing applications to bring subsequent events on record-Maintainability of-
Held, in the application before the first appellate court, the subsequent event, 
i.e., letting of shops to other tenants, is stated to have taken place during 
pendency of the suit and no reason· is assigned why the fact was not brought 
to notice of trial court-Besides, the said application does not seem to have D 
been pressed before appellate court or in revision before High Court-In the 
application filed before Supreme Court, subsequent events i.e., inducting yet 
other tenants, took place during pendency of revision before High Court, but 
the attention of the High Court was not invited to such subsequent events by 
promptly moving an appropriate application-There is no averment in either 
of the applications that the premises re-let were so suitable as to satisfY the E 
requirements of the landlord so as to be relevant and material subsequent 
events-Both the applications fail to satisfY the tests-(i) of bringing of the 
subsequent events having a material bearing on the relief sought for from the 
court and (ii) having been promptly brought to the notice of the Court-
Appeal dismissed-Rent and eviction-Subsequent events. 
Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, [2002] 2 SCC, 256 and J.J. Lal 
Pvt. Ltd and Ors. v. MR. Murali and Anr., [2002] 3 SCC, 98, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.1998 of the Assam High 
Court in C.R. No. 415 of 1993. 
Vijay Hansaria, Ms. lnklee Barooah and Sunil Kumar Jain, for the 
Appellant. 
595 
F 
G 
H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
N.R. Chaudhary and Somnath Mukherjee for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
In the year 1981, the landlords-respondents field a suit for eviction of 
the tenant-appellant from a shop situated on the ground floor and a room 
B situated on the first floor alleging that the premises were required bonajide 
by the landlord for his own occupation mainly for commencing cloth business 
in the shop, a ground available under Section 5(1)(c) of the Assam Urban. 
Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The ground for eviction was held to be proved 
by the Trial Court as also by the Appellate Court. A revision preferred by the 
tenant in the High Court was also dismissed. This is an appeal filed by the 
C tenant by special leave. 
So far as the finding of the Trial Court upheld by the first Appellate 
Court and by the High Court in revision based on the averments made in the 
plaint is concerned, no fault can be found therewith. What we are called upon 
to consider in this appeal is the impact of subsequent events to which the 
D tenant-appellant invited the attention of the first Appellate Court as also of 
this Court by moving applications. We will deal with the tWo applications to 
examine if any of the two applications satisfied the requirement of bringing 
such subsequent events on record of which a Court of law is bound to take 
notice and whether such subsequent events ought to have been inquired into 
E for disentitling the landlord-respondent from decree for eviction as granted 
by the Trial Court. 
The law as to subsequent events has been examined in details· and 
summed up in a recent decision of this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir 
B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC, 256, a decision to which both ofus are a party. The 
F same has law has been reiterated by a subsequent Division Bench in J.J. Lal 
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. MR. Murali and Anr., [2002] 3 SCC, 98. It has been 
held: 
G 
H 
"The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties 
stand crystallised 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 tis. However, the Court has power 
to take notice of subsequent events and 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 
' 
RAM NIBAS GA GAR 

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