ivil Appeal Nos
338 339 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 281285 of the Hyderabad High Court in OMA No 456 of 1984 and CRP No 2743 of 1984
WITH Civil Appeal Nos 2692 930F 1991
KR Choudhary for the Appellant
K Madhava Reddy G Prabhakar TVSN Chari NP for the Respondents
J Leave granted in SLP C Nos
7071 72 of 1986
These appeals are brought against the common judgment of the 929 Andhra Pradesh High Court in OMA No 456 of 1984 and CRP No 2743 of 1984
The High Court set aside in part the common judgment of the Ist Additional Chief Judge Civil Court at Hyderabad in Original Suit No 174 of 1983 and OP No 49 of 1983 whereby he made the award of the umpire hereinafter referred to as the umpire  or arbitrator  a rule of court and passed a decree in terms of the award together with interest on the principal amount awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the decree
The High Court set aside the decree in respect of Claim Nos
III Vi and IX and affirmed the decree for the other claims
The main appeal Nos 338  339 of 1991 arising from SLP C Nos
1573  1574 of 1986 are by the Associated Engineering Co hereinafter referred to as the Contractor 
It challenges the judgment of the High Court setting aside the decree of the Civil Court in respect of Claim Nos
III VI and IX
The other appeals arising from SLP C Nos
7071  7072 of 1986 are by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and they are against the judgment of the High Court confirming the decree of the Civil Court in respect of Claim Nos
II IV and VII4
The High Court set aside Claim Nos
III VI and IX on the ground that those claims were not supported by the agreement between parties and that the arbitrator travelled outside the contract in awarding those claims
While that portion of the judgment of the High Court is supported by the Government the Contractor submits that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with non speaking award
The Government challenges the judgment of the High Court in so far as it affirmed the findings of the Civil Court in respect of Claim Nos
II IV and VII4 on the ground that the arbitrator awarded those claims totally unsupported by the contract
Mr AB Dewan appearing for the Contractor submits that the umpire made a non speaking award
He did not incorporate any document as a part of the award notwithstanding his reference to the contract
In the circumstances counsel submits the law does not permit interference by the Court with such an award
Mr K Madhava Reddy appearing for the Government on the other hand submits that the umpire made a speaking award with reference to the claims and he gave reasons for awarding those claims
It is true counsel says that the umpire made only brief reference to the provisions of the contract and his reasons for making the award
But notwithstanding the brevity of his reasoning he has spoken sufficiently clearly as a result of which errors of law and fact have become 930 apparent on the face of the award disclosing that the umpire acted contrary to and unsupported by contract thereby exceeding his jurisdiction
He says that the umpire has referred to the contract not merely for the purpose of reciting or narrating his authority to hear the matter and resolve the dispute but for incorporating it as a part of the award
In doing so he exceeded the contract not merely by misinterpreting it but by travelling totally outside it and by making an award without regard to and independent of the contract
A number of decision have been cited on either side in support of the respective contentions
The award was made in respect of disputes which arose between the Government and the Contractor for the cement concrete lining under Agreement dated 2011981 as supplemented subsequently in connection with the construction of Nagarjunasagar Dam
The parties filed their pleadings and documents before the arbitratorumpire
There were 15 claims apart from the general claim for cost and interest
As stated earlier we are concerned only with Claim Nos
III VI and IX which are claims awarded by the umpire and decreed by the Civil Court but set aside by the High Court and with Claim Nos
II IV and VII4 which were awarded by the umpire and decreed by the Civil Court as well as by the High Court
The first set of claims respectively are Escalation on Napa Slabs  Payment of Extra Lead for water and Extra Expenditure incurred due to flattening of canal slopes and consequent reduction in top width of banks used as roadway 
The other set of claims relate respectively to Labour Escalation  Refund of excess Hire Charges of Machinery  and  Stand conveyance 
The umpire after reciting the background of the dispute which led to his entering upon reference on 161282 to decide the dispute and the relevant agreement between the parties deals with the claims seriatim
As regards Claim No III he says I hereby declare and award and direct the respondent to compensate the claimants towards escalation in the cost of napaslabs calculated at Rs425 Rupees four and paise twenty five per Sq
of napa slab lining under item 11 of schedule A of the agreement for the entire work and make payments accordingly
The main criticism levelled by the Government against this award is that there was no provision in the contract for escalation of 931 the cost or price of napa slabs
The escalation provision in the contract related to labour diesel oil tyres and tubes as provided in Item 35 thereof
There was no escalation provision in the contract as far as napa slabs were concerned
The price for these slabs had been determined in the contract at Rs 425 Per Sq
and there was no provision for increase or decrease of that price
Both the parties to the contract were bound by that price and the arbitrator therefore had no jurisdiction to award any escalation in the price of napa slabs
In the absence of any provision in the contract the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make an award for escalation
This contention of the Government was accepted by the High Court
Mr Dewan appearing for the Contractor is not in a position to refer to any provision of the contract allowing escalation for napa slabs
All that he is in a position to refer to is Item 35 of the contract which refers to price adjustment for increase or decrease inthe cost
That item as stated earlier refers to various matters such as diesel oil labour etc but not to napa slabs
On the other hand at the end of that item it is specifically stated no claims for price adjustment other than those provided herein shall be entertained 
Furthermore it is specifically provided in the contract the contractor shall have to make his own arrangements to obtain the napa slabs as per standard specifications
The Department does not accept any responsibility either in handing over the quarries or procuring the napa slabs or any other facilities
The contractor will not be entitled for any extra rate due to change in selection of quarries as above 
There is thus a specific prohibition against price adjustment or award for escalated cost in respect of any matter falling outside Item 35
Mr Dewan however submits that being a non speaking award the Court cannot examine the reasons
Mr Madhava Reddy appearing for the Government submits that the award is not silent on the point
It speaks eloquently though briefly
It is not merely in the recital or narrative portion of the award that the agreement is referred to but in making the award under Claim No III the agreement is specifically incorporated by directing payment for escalation on napa slabs under Item 11 of Schedule A of the Agreement at the rate of Rs425
The agreement is thus bodily incorporated into the award thereby disclosing an error apparent on its face and the total lack of the arbitrator s jurisdiction by reason of his going totally outside and opposed to the contract
This counsel says is revealed not by a construction of the contractual provisions but by merely looking at the matters covered by the contract
932 Claim No VI Payment of Extra Lead for water
This is what the arbitrator says I hereby declare and award and direct the Respondent to pay extra towards additional lead for water ie 3 K Ms over the specified lead of 2 KMs
in the agreement for items 4 5 6 10 and 11 of Schedule A
As regards this claim Mr Dewan reiterates his contention that the award is silent as to the reasons and therefore the Court should not interfere
Mr Madhava Reddy on the other hand submits that the award speaks as to the reasons for allowing the claim for extra amount towards additional lead for water ie for 3 KMs
over and above the specified lead of 2 KMs
But counsel says the agreement provides for no payment at all for any lead and much less for any additional lead
He refers to the specific provision of the agreement regarding water
He says that the Contractor had to make its own arrangements for supply of water at work site for all purposes including quarry
There is no provision in the contract for making any payment to the Contractor for the water brought by it to the site
In the absence of any such provision counsel says it is preposterous that the arbitrator should have awarded extra amount for additional lead for water
The contract specifically stated that it was the responsibility of the Contractor to make its on arrangements for the supply of water
The Government gave no assurance to the Contractor regarding the availability of water or the prices payable therefor
The umpire therefore had no jurisdiction to allow Claim No VI
The High Court accepting the contention of the State reversed the Civil Court s decree as regards that claim and held  
In view of unequivocal agreement that the contractor should make his own arrangements for supply of water for the purpose of curing the award of compensation is outside the purview of the agreement and is vitiated
Claim No IX Extra expenditure incurred due to flattening of canal slopes and consequent reduction in top width of banks used as roadway
Referring to this claim this is what the award says I hereby declare and award and direct the respondent to pay the claimant for 50 of the work done on the napa slab lining on the left side slope of Canal at the extra rate of Rs400 per Sq
Met of lining work
933 Rejecting the contentions of the Contractor and accepting those of the Government the High Court held that the contract did not provide for any payment whatever for the maintenance of canal slopes and consequent deduction in top width of banks used as roadway
The High Court found that it was the responsibility of the Contractor to repair the banks and the contract contained no provision for payment of any amount towards the decrease in the width or otherwise
The High Court says  the acceptance of claim on this score is beyond the purview of the agreement and as such vitiated 
While counsel for the Contractor repeats his contentions regarding the award being silent as to reasons Mr Madhava Reddy submits that the contract provides for no payment whatever under Claim No IX
On the other hand it specifically states 8A SITE FACILITIES Haul roads from batching plant site to the work site in the first instance will be formed by the Department as per site surveys per each batching plant site
These haul roads are fair weather roads only with hard passages at stream crossings
Formation of haul roads within the batching plant area maintenance of all haul roads including those formed by the Department shall be the responsibility of the contractors
Existing roads and roads under the control of NS Project can be made use of by the Contractor
Any other haul roads required by the Contractor and not specified in plan shall be carried out by the Contractor at his cost
8A 1
WIDENING OF BANKS The canal banks will be widened to 5 meters and 3 meters width respectively by the Department for right and left banks to facilitate transport of materials
The contractor however has to maintain the haul roads
In the absence of any provision to pay for extra expenditure and in the light of the specific provision placing the sole responsibility for the maintenance of the haul roads on the Contractor the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award 50 at extra rate of Rs 4 per Sq
Meter
The contract contains no provision for payment of any amount outside what is strictly specified under the clause
In the circumstances Mr 934 Madhava Reddy says the High Court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion which it did as regards the arbitrator acting outside his jurisdiction
We shall now deal with the other set of claims namely Claim Nos
II IV and VII4 which had been awarded and decreed by both the courts below
The arbitrator deals with Claim No II as follows The claim is admitted
I hereby declare and award and direct the Respondents that due to the statutory revision of Minimum rates of wages payable to various categories of workers the claimant is to be paid compensation as per the following formula P1 WSI WSO010 WSSI WSSO010 WUSI WUSO08 V2 X R 100 WSO WSSO WUSO increase in Min
Wages of labour notified by the Government of AP after 22101980 under the Min
Wages Act 1948
Percentage Labour component of each item of Work as per Appendix 9 at page 139 of Agreement
R Value of work done under each item of work during the period under review
WSO 1115 Daily Minimum wage in force on the date of Tender for skilled labour
WSSO 850 Daily Minimum wage in force on the date of Tender for semiskilled labour
WUSO 565 Daily Minimum wage in force on the date of Tender for unskilled labour
WSI Revised daily Min wage as fixed by Govt
AP for skilled labour applicable for the period under review
935 WSSI Revised daily Min wage as fixed by Govt
of AP for semiskilled labour applicable for the period under review
WUSI Revised daily Min wage as fixed by Govt
of AP for semiskilled labour applicable for the period under review
WUSI Revised daily Min
Wages as fixed by Government of AP for unskilled labour applicable for the period under review
The above compensation is payable to the claimant for the work done after 231280 the date of publication of GO No 835 dated 181280 till the completion of the work
It is not seriously disputed that the observation The claim is admitted is only a reference to the arbitrator s decision to allow the claim and not as a concession or admission on the part of the Government
In fact from the pleadings it is quite clear that the Government had opposed every claim and there was no concession on its part
Claim No II had been as seen above elaborately dealt with by the arbitrator
On account of the statutory revision of minimum rates of wages payable to various categories of workers the arbitrator made the award in respect of labour escalation
Escalation under this item is in fact as stated above provided for under the contract but in terms thereof
The grievance of the Government is not because the umpire awarded escalation for labour but because he allowed escalation otherwise than as provided under the contract
The contract under Item 35 provides Increase or decrease in the cost due to labour shall be calculated quarterly in accordance with the following formula V1  075 P1 X Ri i 100 10 V1  increase or decrease in the cost of work during the quarter under consideration due to changes in rates for labour
R  the value of the work done in Rupees during the quarter under consideration 936 1  the average consumer price index for industrial workers wholesale prices for the quarter in which tenders were opened as published in Nalgonda District by the Director of Bureau of Economics and Statistics Andhra Pradesh
P1  Percentage of labour components specified in schedule in appendix 9 of the item
i  the average consumer price index for industrial workers wholesale prices for the quarter under consideration
Price adjustment clause shall be applicable only for the work that is carried out within the stipulated time or extensions thereof as are not attributable to the contractor
No claims for price adjustment other than those provided herein shall be entertained
The contention of the Government is that the two formulae are totally different from each other as a result of which the arbitrator awarded very much more than what is warranted under the agreed formula
Mr Madhava Reddy submits that it is true that the contractor was bound to pay minimum wages according to the relevant statutory provisions
In fact the contract contains a provision making it necessary for the Contractor to conform to all laws regulations bye laws ordinances regulations etc
But the fact that the Contractor necessarily had to pay enhanced rates of wages did not entitle it to claim any amount from the Government in excess of what had been strictly provided under the contract
A specific formula had been prescribed under Item 35 as seen above and the function of the umpire was to make an award in accordance with that formula
He had no jurisdiction to alter the formula which he has done as seen from the award
It is not disputed on behalf of the Contractor that the formula followed by the arbitrator as seen from the award under Claim No II is different from the formula prescribed under the contract
But Mr KR Chowdhury one of the counsel appearing for the Contractor points out that the contract provided for payment of all wages according to the current rates and therefore the arbitrator was well within his jurisdiction to make an award by adopting a formula in keeping with the enhanced rates of wages and the High Court he contends 937 rightly decreed the amounts under that claim in terms of the award
We shall deal with Claim Nos
IV and VII4 separately
But as regards Claim Nos
III VI and IX we are of the view that the High Court was right in stating that the arbitrator acted outside the contract in awarding those claims
For the very same reason we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion which it did regarding Claim No II
We say so because there is no justification whatsoever for the arbitrator to act outside the contract
These four claims are not payable under the contract
The contract does not postulate in fact it prohibits payment of any escalation under Claim No III for napa slabs or Claim No VI for extra lead of water or Claim No IX for flattening of canal slopes or Claim No II for escalation in labour charges otherwise than in terms of the formula prescribed by the contract
The conclusion is reached not by construction of the contract but by merely looking at the contract
The umpire travelled totally outside the permissible territory and thus exceeded his jurisdiction in making the award under those claims
This is an error going to the root of his jurisdiction See Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth  Ors
vs Chintamanrao Balaji  Ors AIR 1965 SC 214
We are in complete agreement with Mr Madhava Reddy s submissions on the point
As regards Claim Novs
IV and VII4 we see no merit in Mr Madhava Reddy s contentions
Claim No IV relates to Refund of excess hire charges of machinery and payment towards losses suffered as a result of poor performance of department machinery and also direction for the future 
This claim was rightly allowed by the arbitrator and his decision was rightly upheld by High Court
The Government was in terms of the contract bound to compensate the Contractor for the excess higher charges paid as a result of the poor performance of the machinery supplied by the Government
Claim No VII4 is as regards Sand Conveyance 
The arbitrator says The diesel oil requirement shall be taken as 035 lit for item No 5 of statement A at page 59 of Agreement as indicated in the original tender and not as 0035 and price adjustment made accordingly
The arbitrator was in our view right in so stating and the High Court 938 in our view rightly upheld this claim
The arbitrator cannot act arbitrarily irrationally capriciously or independently of the contract
His sole function is to arbitrate in terms of the contract
He has no power apart from what the parties have given him under the contract
If he has travelled outside the bounds of the contract he has acted without jurisdiction
But if he has remained inside the parameters of the contract and has construed the provisions of the contract his award cannot be interfered with unless he has given reasons for the award disclosing an error apparent on the face of it
An arbitrator who acts in manifest disregard of the contract acts without jurisdiction
His authority is derived from the contract and is governed by the Arbitration Act which embodies principles derived from a specialised branch of the law of agency see Mustill  Boyd s Commercial Arbitration Second Edition p 641
He commits misconduct if by his award he decides matters excluded by the agreement see Halsbury s Laws of England Volume II Fourth Edition Para 622
A deliberate departure from contract amounts to not only manifest disregard of his authority or a misconduct on his part but it may tantamount to a mala fide action
A conscious disregard of the law or the provisions of the contract from which he has derived his authority vitiates the award
A dispute as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is not a dispute within the award but one which has to be decided outside the award
An umpire or arbitrator cannot widen his jurisdiction by deciding a question not referred to him by the parties or by deciding a question otherwise than in accordance with the contract
He cannot say that he does not care what the contract says
He is bound by it
It must bear his decision
He cannot travel outside its bounds
It he exceeded his jurisdiction by so doing his award would be liable to be set aside
As stated by Lord Parmoor  It would be impossible to allow an umpire to arrogate to himself jurisdiction over a question which on the true construction of the submission was not referred to him
An umpire cannot widen the area of his jurisdiction by holding contrary to the fact that the matter which he affects to decide is within the submission of the parties  
939 Attorney General for Manitoba vs Kelly  Others  276
Evidence of matters not appearing on the face of the award would be admissible to decide whether the arbitrator travelled outside the bounds of the contract and thus exceeded his jurisdiction
In order to see what the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is it is open to the Court to see what dispute was submitted to him
If that is not clear from the award it is open to the Court to have recourse to outside sources
The Court can look at the affidavits and pleadings of parties the Court can look at the agreement itself
Bunge  Co vs Dewar  Webb 1921 8 L1
LRep
436KB
If the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the contract that is an error within his jurisdiction
But if he wanders Outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him he commits a jurisdictional error
Such error going to his jurisdiction can he established by looking into material outside the award
Extrinsic evidence is admissible in such cases because the dispute is something which arises under or in relation to the contract or dependent on the construction of the contract or to be determined within the award
The dispute as to jurisdiction is a matter which is outside the award or outside whatever may be said about it in the award
The ambiguity of the award can in such cases be resolved by admitting extrinsic evidence
The rationale of this rule is the nature of the dispute is something which has to be determined outside and independent of what appears in the award
Such jurisdictional error needs to be proved by evidence extrinsic to the award
See Ms Alopi Parshad  Sons
Ltd vs The Union of India   Bunge  Co vs Dewar  Webb
 1921 8 L1
L Rep 436 KB Christopher Brown Ld
vs Genossenschaft Oesterreichischer  Rex vs Fulham  Falkingham vs Victorian Railways Commission  Rex vs All Saints Southampton 1828 7 B  C 785 Laing
Son  Ltd vs Eastcheap Dried Fruit Co 961 1 L1L Rep 142 145 QB Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd vs National Bank of Pakistan 1978 2 L1
L Rep 223 CA Heyman vs Darwing Ld Union of India vs kishorilal   Renusager Power Co Ltd vs General Electric Company   Jivarajbhai vs Chintamanrao AIR 1965 SC 214 Gobardhan Das vs Lachhmi Ram AIR 1954 SC 689 692 Thawardas vs Union of India AIR 1955 SC 468 Omanhene vs Chief Obeng AIR 1934 PC 185 188 FR Absalom
Ltd vs Great Western London Garden Village Society
Limited and M Golodetz 940 vs Schrier  Anr 1947 80 L1
L Rep 647
In the instant case the umpire decided matters strikingly outside his jurisdiction
He outstepped the confines of the contract
He wandered far outside the designated area
He diagressed far away from the allotted task
His error arose not by misreading or misconstruing or misunderstanding the contract but by acting in excess of what was agreed
It was an error going to the root of his jurisdiction because he asked himself the wrong question disregarded the contract and awarded in excess of his authority
In many respects the award flew in the face of provisions of the contract to the contrary
See the principles state in Anisminic Ltd vs Foreign Compensation Commission   Pearlman vs Keepers and Governors of Harrow School   Lee vs Showmen s Guild of Great Britain  ML Sethi vs RP Kapur   The Managing Director
J and K Handicrafts vs Ms Good Luck Carpets and State of Andhra Pradesh  Anr
vs RV Rayanim  See also Mustill  Boyd s Commercial Arbitration Second Edition Halsbury s Laws of England Fourth EditionVol
The umpire in our view acted unreasonably irrationally and capriciously in ignoring the limits and th clear provisions of the contract
In awarding claims which are totally opposed to the provisions of the contract to which he made specific reference in allowing them he has misdirected and misconducted himself by manifestly disregarding the limits of his jurisdiction and the bounds of the contract from which he derived his authority thereby acting ultra fines compromissi
In the circumstances we affirm the judgment of the High Court under appeals except in respect of Claim No II
Accordingly the appeals of the contractor are dismissed and the appeals of the Government are allowed in respect of claim No II
We do not however make any order as to costs
GN Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The appellant plaintiff instituted a Regular Civil Suit in the court of Joint Civil Judge JD Ahmednagar for vacant possession of the suit property and also for arrears of rent
It was pleaded by the appellant that the defendants were in possession of the suit shop on the monthly rent and the tenancy commenced from the first day of every month and ended on the last day of the said month according to English calender
The plaintiff based his suit primarily on two grounds viz that the defendants had committed default in the payment of statutory rent and were thus defaulters and secondly the appellant required the premises for bona fide need for setting up an office for her husband who is tax consultant
It was asserted by the plaintiff that the defendants had acquired alternative business placed both in the vicinity of the suit premises being partners of the firms named in the plaint and also elsewhere and they no longer required the premises
It was also added that the suit premises remained mostly locked and no business was carried on there defendants 1 to 3 having shifted from Ahmednagar to Pune were doing business there
The defendants denied the allegations contained in the plaint stating that the suit property was in their possession since last 20 years at the annual rent of Rs25536 ps that an receipt of the notice they had sent the rent amounting to Rs517 92 ps
by Money Order which the appellant refused being not correctly calculated then again the defendants sent Rs960 by Demand Draft which was also refused by the appellant as miscalculated
Thereafter the defendants sent Rs65855 ps
by Money Order which was accepted by the appellant
According to the tenants they are always to pay the rent and in fact the appellant s husband had been accepting the rent without issuing any receipt therefore
According to the defendants the requirement of the plaintiff was neither bona fide nor reasonable her husband an 942 Income Tax and SalesTax Practitioner was working with Mr Gandhi as one of his partners and also having his own office
Further the plaintiff was in possession of an area 15ft
x 25ft
on the ground floor facing towards west adjacent to the suit premises and also complete first floor 45ft
x 15ft
The Trial Court held that the defendants failed to prove that the suit premises were leased to them at annual rent and as such they were held to be defaulters as the deposits of rent were not made within the meaning of Section 123a and 123b of the Rent Act
The Trial Court further found that as the plaintiff has no other accomodation at Ahmednagar except the suit premises and the partnership of the plaintiff s husband with with SB Gandhi had been dissolved the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for the purpose of opening office of her husband as Tax Consultant
Accordingly the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises within one month of the date of order
Being aggrieved the defendants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge Ahmednagar
The Additional District Judge held that the trial court was right in holding that the defendant No 1 was paying the rent monthly and he was a monthly tenant but there were no arrears for the statutory period in order to hold that the defendants were defaulters for which their tenancy was liable to be determined
On the question of bona fide requirement of the appellant the Additional District Judge also considered the application for additional evidence which disclosed that the plaintiff s husband had purchased a plot and constructed a big bungalow covering about 2000 sq
and held that it was not known whether the Municipality had given permission for habitation and furthermore the requirement of the plaintiff was especially for conducting her husband s profession of Tax Practitioner at the required suit premises which is not for residential purposes
On this reasoning the Additional District Judge held that the subsequent circumstances have not much relevance and the requirement of the plaintiff appellant was a bona fide and genuine one
Accordingly he affirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court
The Respondent tenant being aggrieved filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the decree of ejectment passed against him
The High Court on a consideration of the additional evidences which have been expressly mentioned in the application for additional evidence held that the husband of the appellant had required a plot in TP Scheme No III Ahmednagar and constructed a big bungalow thereon during the pendency of the appeal 943 and has been residing there
The said premises consisted of a 2000 sq
covered area and the appellant was using the same for residence and office purpose also
The High Court held that the said bungalow can be conveniently used for the residence of the plaintiff and her family members as well as for the purpose of opening of office of Tax Consultant by her husband
That apart the entire first floor of the suit premises can be conveniently utilised for opening the office of Tax Consultant by the plaintiff s husband
The High Court therefore on that reasoning allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below
Hence this appeal by the appellant landlord by special leave
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD The lower Appellate Court after considering the evidences held that the defendant are not defaulters as there were no arrears for the statutory period
Thus the question of the default on the part of the defendants in the payment of rent was not at all raised nor agitated before the Court of Appeal below by the plaintiff
952F G It is now beyond the pale of any doubt that in appropriate cases events subsequent to the filing of the suit can be taken notice of and can be duly considered provided the same is relevant in determining the question of bona fide requirement
The High Court was right in duly considering the new facts and circumstances that have been brought to the notice of the Court by the application for additional evidence filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure
957H 958A In the appeal it has been rightly held by the High Court after considering the subsequent facts and materials brought out by the application for additional evidence that the plaintiff failed to prove reasonable and bona fide need for her occupation of the suit premises for the purpose of opening the Tax Consultancy office of her husband Amritlal Mutha
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the subsequent materials brought out by the application for additional evidence we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the aforesaid findings arrived at by the High Court is totally unexceptionable and so the same cannot be interfered with in this appeal
958F G The words reasonable requirement   undoubtedly postulatethat there must be an element of need desire or wish
The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in 944 mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing that a desire
Ms Variety Emporium vs
V RM Mohd Ibrahim Naina   Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata section Guram   Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor  General Traders   Hasmat Rai  Anr
vs Raghunath Prasad  Amarjit Singh vs Smt
Khatoon Quamarain   and Begum and Ors
vs Abdul Ahad Khan and Ors