ivil Appeal No 4236 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 1341988 of the Bombay High Court in WP No 1689 of 1987
VM Tarkunde Mrs Nandini Gore Ms Aditi Chaudhary and Mrs M Karanjawala NP for the appellant
Dr YS Chitale Shishir Sharma and PH Parekh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY J
This appeal leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court at Bombay in Writ Petition No 1689 of 1987 allowing the writ petition setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate court and thereby dismissing the suit by filed by the plaintiff appellant in this appeal for eviction of the tenant respondents
The matrix of the case as appears from the pleadings of the parties is as follows The plaintiff appellant Gulabbai instituted Regular Civil Suit No 19 of 1979 in the court of Shri SS Patil III Jt
Civil Judge JD Ahmednagar at Ahmednagar for vacant possession of the suit property consisting of part of survey No 3576 in the city of Ahmednagar and also for the arrears of rent and the costs of the suit
Originally the said property belonged to the Imarat Company Private Limited
The plaintiff purchased the said property from Imarat Company Private 945 Limited bearing numbers on the front on the eastern as 81 to 83 and rear part on the West 89 to 91 for a consideration of Rs 34000 on August 12 1976
At the time of purchase of the premises the said Amritlal Mutha in the name of his wife
Gulabbai the plaintiff
The defendants were in possession of a part of the said premises bearing Nos
81 to 83 on eastern side whereas the western part on the ground floor bearing Nos 89 to 91 was possessed by the brother of Amritlal Mutha ie kanhyalal Mutha who has been running a provision store under the name and style of Mutha Provision Store  for the last 15 years
The defendant Nos 1 and 4 ie Nalin Narsi Vohra and Mulji Narsi Vohra are the brothers whereas defendant Nos 2 and 3 are the wife and son of the defendant No 1 respectively
According to the plaintiff the defendants are in possession of the suit shop Nos
81 to 83 and measuring 21ft
x 15ft
on the monthly rent of Rs 2128 ps
plus education cess Rs 255 ps
The tenancy commences from the first day of every month and ends on the last day of the said month according to the English calendar
Prior to the purchase of the suit premises the tenancy is in the name of defendant No 1 ie Nalin Narsi Vohra and the rent receipts too were in the name of the defendant No 1 only
According to the plaintiff the original agreement of defendant with Imarat Company Pvt Ltd is to pay rent from month to month
After purchase of the said property
Imarat Company intimated to the tenant defendant No 1 about the said purchase by the plaintiff
It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant No 1 assured the plaintiff after purchase of the suit house that he would vacate the said premises
However the defendants demanded Pagadi  amounting to Rs 25000 in order to vacate the suit premises
It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants were in arrears of rent since 1281975 till 15121977
The plaintiff therefore issued a notice dated 15121977 of ejectment and thereby demanded No 1 after receipt of the notice sent Rs 57192 ps
by Money Order
But it was refused by the plaintiff as the rent was not correctly calculated
The defendants again sent Rs 960 by Demand Draft which was also refused by the plaintiff as miscalculated
The defendants sent thereafter Rs 65855 ps
by Money Order which was accepted by the plaintiff
According to the plaintiff the defendants are monthly tenants and so according to her defendants are defaulter for non paying the rent of the suit premises for more than six months
The plaintiff also stated that her husband Amritlal Mutha is a 946 Taxation Consultant and the suit premises are required for the purpose of office for her husband as her husband has no other suitable accommodation except the suit premises to open his office
It has also been pleaded in the plaint that the defendants no longer require the suit premises for the purpose of business because the defendant Nos 1 to 3 are at present residing at Pune and doing the business at Pune under the name and style of Ashok and Company  which deals with the sale and purchase of machine tools
It has further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendants are in possession of three other business at Nagar which are situated near the suit premises
The defendants have purchased one shop in front of Kohinoor Cloth Store in the year 1964 and defendant Nos 1 to 4 are partners in the shop Liberty Dresses  which deals with Reddy made garments and Hosiery
The defendant Nos 1 to 4 have also purchased the premises for Rs 13000 in the year 1972 from Imarat Company Private Ltd which is also situated in front of the suit premises
The defendants have also purchased one premises from Imarat Company Private Ltd
In the year 1974 for 12000
The defendants have removed the middle wall in between the two properties mentioned above and opened a big shop and are carrying the business of readymade garments and woolen hosiery called as Madura Stores 
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants no more require the suit premises for business purposes and prayed for an order of eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement
It has also been pleaded that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if the possession did not hand over the suit premises to the plaintiff after the receipt of the notice and the instant suit was filed on January 8 1979
The defendant respondent Nos 1 to 4 filed a written statement exhibit 10 denying all the material allegations made by the plaintiff
According to the defendants the description of the suit house was not made properly in the plaint and hence on that ground the suit is liable to be dismissed
The defendants has stated that the suit property is in their possession since the last 20 years at the annual rent of Rs 25536 ps
They have further stated that the rent of the suit premises is to be given after every 1 year which the defendants had been regularly paying to Imarat Company Pvt
Ltd The defendants admit that the suit premises has been purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1975 and the defendants offered the rent to the plaintiff on several occasions but the plaintiff refused to accept the same
Ultimately they sent the rent by Money Order which was also refused by the plaintiff
Again in order to show their willingness the defendants sent an amount of 947 Rs 960 by Demand Draft but it was also refused by the plaintiff
The defendants thereafter have sent Rs 65858 ps
which was accepted by the plaintiff on December 27 1977
Thus the rent was paid upto 30111977 and again from 1121977 to 3091978 the defendants paid the rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff and husband of the plaintiff accepted the same but he did not give the receipt of the same
The defendants further remitted an amount of Rs 23835 ps
by Money Order to the plaintiff and it was accepted by the plaintiff
The defendants submit that they were always ready and willing to pay the rent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff was not accepting the same
The defendants also replied to the said notice
According to the defendants the requirement of the plaintiff is neither bona fide nor reasonable
The defendants further pleaded that the husband of the plaintiff is Income tax and State tax Practitioner and working with SB Gandhi as one of his partners and also having his own office which is situated in Ghas Gali now called as Shahaji Road on the first floor and the said premises is suitable for plaintiff s husband to open to his office there
The plaintiff is in possession of area 15 fts
x 25 fts
on the ground floor facing towards west adjacent to the suit premises and also complete first floor 15 fts
x 15 fts
The said area is suitable for plaintiff s husband for his office if he so desires
It has been pleaded by the defendant No 1 that greater hardship would be caused to him if premises are vacated and handed over to the plaintiff
The defendants submit that they are residing at Ahmednagar and carrying the business of Ready made garments in the suit shop
It has been further pleaded that accommodation is not easily available in the Ahmednagar City for the purpose of business and Kapad Bazar area where the suit premises exist is the only good market of hosiery and so prayed for dismissal of the plaintiff s suit
On the above pleadings ten issues were framed of which the relevant issues are Issue No 2  Whether the plaintiff proves that the is lawful defaulter in payment of monthly rent Issue No 3  Whether the plaintiff proves that she bona fide requires possession of the suit premises for the office of her husband Amritlal Issue No 4  To whom the greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree for eviction than by refusing to pass it 948 Issue No 7  Whether the defendant No 1 proves that suit premises were leased to him at annual rent of Rs 25536 ps The Trial Court held with regard to Issue No that at the time of purchases there was ground floor and first floor to the suit premises
The defendant were in possession of shop Nos
81 to 83 on the eastern side and on the western side of the ground floor shops bearing Nos 89 to 91 were in possession of the brother of the plaintiff s husband Kanhyalal Mutha were he had been running a provision store since the last 13 years
The family of Amritlal Mutha ie husband of the plaintiff considered of his wife his 3 children the eldest son aged about 16 years was studying in the 12th standard in the year 1981
His second son aged about 13 years was in 7th standard and 3rd son in 3rd standard in the year 1981
The plaintiff had been residing on the first floor of the suit premises which consisted of 4 rooms first one bed room towards west admeasuring 7 fts
x 12 fts
and next room kitchen admeasuring 7 fts
x 11 fts
and 3rd room admeasuring 7 fts
x 11 fts
which is used for the studies of the children
One other room admeasuring 15 fts
x 15 fts
was used as a bed room
It has been found that first floor premises is not sufficient for his office purposes because he requires at least 25 fts
x 30 fts
area for the purpose of office in order to keep the records and for the sitting arrangement for his clients and also for his cabin
It has further been found that the ground floor shop Nos 89 to 91 adjacent to the suit premises is not available for the plaintiff s husband for opening his office as Kanhyalal Mutha brother of the plaintiff s husband has been running there Mutha Provision Store for the last about 15 years the evidence of Amritlal is also consistent with the evidence of Kanyalal Mutha on this point
The Trial Court therefore found that as the plaintiff has no other accommodation at Ahmednagar except the suit premises and the partnership of the plaintiff s husband with SB Gnadhi has been dissolved the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for the purpose of opening of office of her husband as Tax Consultant
The demand of the plaintiff is therefore reasonable and bona fide
It was also found that the defendant No 1 was in possession of a number of premises which are near the suit premises and the defendants were carrying on the hosiery business in those premises under the name and style of Liberty Dresses  and Madura Stores 
It has been further held that the defendant No 1 was shown as partner in the firm Ms Vohra and Company 9497 Budhwar Peth Pune 2 and the residence of defendant No 1 is known as Krishnakripa Mukund Nagar Pune 9 where the suit summons were served on the defendant No 1
It was 949 also found that it was evident from exhibit 105 that the son of defendant No 1 and wife of son of defendant No 1 are the partners in Ms Ashok and Company and both are residing at 73 C Vanshree Apartment Rambag Colony Sadashiv peth
It has also been found that the defendant No 1 has admitted in his cross examination that he has vacated his residential premises at Ahmednagar and he is in search of other residential accommodation
It was therefore held that the plaintiff has proved his bona fide requirement of the suit premises and thus issue No 3 had been decided in the affirmative
As regards Issue No 4 the Trial Court held that except the suit premises and first floor on it no other premises was available to the plaintiff at Ahmednagar
The Trial Court held further that the first floor premises is not suitable for the plaintiff s husband to open his office and greater hardship will be caused to the plaintiff if the suit premises be not handed over to the plaintiff than by denying him the vacant possession of the suit premises
Issue No 4 was thus held in favour of the plaintiff
It was further held that the suit premises were properly described in the plaint
As regards Issue Nos 2 and 7 it was held that the defendant No 1 is a monthly tenant and the monthly rent in respect of such premises is Rs 2128 ps
plus education cess Rs 255 ps
ie Rs 2383 ps
It was also held that the tenancy commenced from the first day of every month and ended on last day of the same month as per the English calendar
The Trial Court held that the defendants failed to prove that the suit premises were leased to them at annual rent of Rs 25536 and hence that issue was decided against the defendants
The defendants were also to be held as defaulters as the deposits of rent were not made within the meaning of Section 123a and 123b of the Rent Act
The Trial Court thus decreed the suit and directed the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises within one month of the date of order
Against the said Judgment and decree the defendant No 1 Nalin Narsi Vohra filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No 430 of 1985 in the court of Addl
Distt
Judge Ahmednagar The learned 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
It was further held that there are no arrears for the statutory period in order to hold that the defendants are defaulters for which their tenancy is liable to be determined
As such the Addl
District Judge found against the plaintiff holding that the defendants 950 had not defaulted in payment of rent and there could not be any decree of ejectment on this ground
The learned Addl
District Judge further held that there was nothing which shattered the evidence of Amritlal when he speaks about the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff for having the suit property to open his office and the argument that plaintiff can acquire the premises of Kanhyalal could not be accepted as it was neither possible nor feasible in the near future to expect that Kanhyalal would surrender the premises to plaintiff
The construction on the second floor of the suit premises was a temporary one and as such the same could not be used for residential purposes
The Addled
District Judge also considered the application for additional evidence which disclosed that the plaintiff s husband had purchased a plot at Chahurana Bk
at the TP Scheme No 3 within the municipal limit of Ahmednagar and constructed a big bungalow covering about 2000 sq
The Addl
District Judge held that it was not known whether the Municipality has 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
The suit premises are situated in Kapad Bazar area where the trading communities have their shops and business establishments and is fit for the opening of Tax Consultant s office
The bungalow constructed by the plaintiff s husband was not suitable for starting the office of Tax Practitioner as it is at a remote place
It was therefore held that the subsequent circumstances have not much relevance and the requirement of the plaintiff was a bona fide and genuine one
As such the Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court
It was further held by the learned Additional District Judge that there was no possibility of any hardship being caused to the defendants in case the possession of the suit premises was granted to the plaintiff
The Addl
District Judge therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
Feeling aggrieved the respondent tenant Nalin Narsi Vohra filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution being registered as Writ Petition No 1689 of 1987 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
The High Court issued a Rule on the said writ petition and after hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances including the evidences on record the High Court held that in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court does not generally interfere with regard to the concurrent findings of facts 951 arrived at by the courts below but in appropriate cases the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to consider facts subsequent to the filing of an application for eviction which have a great bearing on the question of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord for a decree for eviction of the suit premises
The High Court has referred to some decisions rendered by this Court in this respect
It has been held by the High Court that of the subsequent facts which are relevant and admissible can be taken into considerations by the High Court in order to come to a finding as to the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord for passing a decree of eviction from the suit premises
The High Court has held on a consideration of the additional evidences which have been expressly mentioned in the application for additional evidence stating in detail that the plaintiff s husband Amritlal Mutha after passing of the decree for eviction under section 131a of the Bombay Rents
Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 has acquired a plot being No 471 situated in TP Scheme No III at Ahmednagar
The total area of the plot is 3025 sq
and after getting the permission from the Municipal Council of Ahmednagar the plaintiff s husband constructed a big bungalow thereon during the pendency of the appeal and had been residing there
The said premises consists of a covered area of 2000 sq
and the plaintiff is using the same for residence and office purpose also
These facts were not properly considered by the lower appellate court while finding about the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff in passing a decree of eviction of the defendants from the suit premises
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 Amritlal Mutha
The lower appellate court totally failed to consider this aspect of the case
It has therefore been held that  
Even otherwise the finding is manifestly so unjust and unsupported by the evidence that its validity cannot be sustained even in this limited field more so since there is utter mis reading of the evidence and non application of mind on material features and there is also an error apparent on the face of the record   The High Court therefore allowed the writ petition and made the rule absolute and set aside the judgments and decrees made by the courts below
952 It is against this judgment and order the instant appeal on special leave has been filed at the instance of the plaintiff in this court
Three question were raised before the courts below
The first question was whether the suit property was properly described in the plaint or not
On this point both the Trial Court as well as the lower appellate court have concurrently found that the suit premises being part of Survey No 3576 which was previously owned by one Imarat Company Private Limited from whom the plaintiff s husband Amritlal Mutha purchased for a sum of Rs 34 000 was properly described in the plaint and the respondents defendants have been occupying an area admittedly 20fts
x 15fts
being shop Nos
81 to 83 on the eastern side of the said premises
This finding of the courts below has neither been challenged before the High Court nor before this Court in the instant appeal
The next point that was urged by the plaintiff in the courts below was that on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent the defendant No 1 was liable to be ejected from the suit premises in accordance with the provisions of Section 122 read with Section 123a of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 hereinafter to be referred in short as the said Act
On this point the Trial Court held that  the defendant by depositing rent for the first time on 8680 for the period 11078 to 311280 committed breach of above mentioned ruling and is defaulter within the meaning of Section 123a and 123b of the Rent Act   The lower Appellate Court however after considering the evidences held that the defendant are not defaulters as there were no arrears for the statutory period
Thus the question of 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
The only question that was agitated with great vehemence by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is about the finding arrived at by the High Court to the effect that there was no reasonable bona fide requirement for the plaintiff appellant to obtain a decree for eviction of the defendants respondents from the suit premises for the 953 purpose of opening of office of Tax Consultant by the appellant s husband Amritlal Mutha on the ground floor of the said premises
Mr Tarkunde learned counsel appearing in support of the case of the appellant has with great vehemence urged before us that the bungalow that has been constructed by the appellant s husband within Ahmednagar Municipal area is at a distance of about 1 2 Kms
from the suit premises whereas the suit premises is situated in the Kapad Bazar area where the traders have their shops and establishments and as such the ejectment of the respondents from the suit premises was necessary for opening the office of Tax Consultancy in the suit premises by the husband of the appellant
It has been further urged in this connection by Mr Tarkunde that the bungalow that has been constructed and comprises of a covered area of 2000 sq
ft is entirely necessary for occupation of the appellant s eldest son Abhey Amritlal Mutha who passed MBBS in 1988 and obtained certificate of registration
It has also been submitted in this connection that permission to start dispensary and consulting clinicresidence in the said premises has been obtained from the Town Planner and Chief Officer Ahmednagar Municipal Council
It has also been urged with great vehemence by Shri Tarkunde that the respondent has not been residing at all in Ahmednagar but has shifted to Pune as will be evident from the fact that the summons of the suit were served on the respondent No 1 at his residence at Krishnakripa Galli No 3 3rd Floor Mukund Nagar Pune 411009
It has been further stated that the respondent No 1 Nalin Narsi Vohra has started a business under the name and style of Ms Vohra and Company since February 9497 Budhwar Peth Pune 2
It is a partnership firm business and the partners are Nalin Narsi Vohra Krishnakripa Mukand Nagar Pune 9 and Mrs Bhanu Ashok Vora 41166 Lokamanya Nagar Pune 30
This business has been started since July 1979 as per the partnership deed and the copy of the register of firms
It has also been stated that the respondent No 1 Ashok Nalin also started a business of machine tools known as Ms Ashok  Company at 9497 Budhwar Peth Pune 2 vide partnership deed dated 1221982
It has further been urged on behalf of the appellant tha the suit premises remained under lock and key for about ten years and no business was transacted in the said premises
It has also been urged in this connection that besides the suit premises the respondents purchased the Municipal Premises No 27336 and has been running Madura Stores  for selling ready made garments
In 1972 the respondent No 1 Nalin Narsi Vohra and his brother respondent No 4 Mulji Narsi Vohra jointly purchased the ownership rights from Imarat Company Pvt ltd
the premises No 7339 and open Liberty Dresses  therein for sale of 954 hosiery goods
Similarly the respondent No 1 also purchased another premises opposite to Kohinoor Cloth Store and after removing the wall in between two shops has been running the business of ready made garments known as Madura Stores 
It has therefore been contended that the suit premises being closed for a period of ten years and no business being carried on there the appellant is entitled to get decree of ejectment of the respondents from the suit premises under the provisions of the said Act
The contention that the respondents kept the suit premises under lock and key for about ten years without opening the shop running the business of ready made garments therein has not at all been proved by any evidence whatsoever as has been held by the High Court
Therefore this contention is wholly untenable
Moreover the ground of ejectment of the ground of non payment of rent for over six months under Section 122 and 123a of the Bombay Rent Act has not been mentioned in the eviction suit nor any issue was framed on this score
It has been on the other hand contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the submissions made in the application for additional evidence bring further materials before the lower appellate court on the question that the appellant has alternative accommodation and as such she did not reasonably and bona fide require the suit premises for the opening of the office of Tax Consultant for her husband Amritalal Mutha therein
It is convenient to note in this connection that the statements as well as the subsequent facts that have been brought to the notice of the court by the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed before the lower appellate court have not been controverted at all
As such the appellant or her husband Amritlal Mutha did not deny those subsequent facts brought before the court by the said application
The lower appellate court that admitted the application for additional evidence failed to consider at all the fact that a very specious bungalow comprising of about 2000 sq
covered area had already been built within the Ahmednagar Municipal Area by the plaintiff s husband Amritlal Mutha
After purchasing the plot and constructing the bungalow during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court the appellant with the members of her family had been residing there and the husband of the appellant had started the office of Tax Consultancy in that bungalow
The lower appellate court merely by passed this relevant fact on the plea that that bungalow is at a distance from the Kapad Bazar area where the shops 955 of the traders are situated
The lower appellate court also did not at all consider whether the first floor of the suit premises as well as the second floor which though claimed to be a shed could be conveniently utilised for the purpose of the said Tax Consultancy Office
The lower appellate Court simply considered that the second floor being a temporary shed could not properly be used for opening the Tax Consultancy Office and the first floor which consisted of 4 rooms of which 2 are used as bed rooms and 1 is used as a kitchen and 1 as study room of the sons of the appellant cannot be conveniently utilised for the said office as there was no space for the same without considering at all that the appellant with members of his family had been residing already in the spacious bungalow referred to hereinbefore
It has been urged with great vehemence on behalf of the appellant that both the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court having found that the appellant reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for the opening of the office of Tax Consultant of the appellant s husband Amritlal Mutha the decree of eviction of the suit premises should not have been set aside by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by taking into consideration subsequent facts and evidences
This submission in our considered opinion is without any substance and same is to be rejected
Reference may be made in this connection to the decision in the case of Ms Variety Emporium vs VRM Mohd Ibrahim Naina  wherein it has been observed that No authority is needed for the proposition that in appropriate cases the Court must have regard to events as they present themselves at the time when it is hearing the proceeding before it and mould the relief in the list of those events
We may however draw attention to a decision of this Court in Hasmat Rai vs Raghunath Prasad  the ratio of which may be stated thus When an action is brought by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal requirements the landlord s need must not only be shown to exist at the date of the suit but it must exist on the date of the appellate decree or the date when a higher Court deals with the matter
During the progress and passage of proceedings from court to court if subsequent events occur which if noticed would non suit the landlord the court has to examine and evaluate those events and mould the decree accordingly
The tenant is entitled to show that the need or requirement of the landlord no more exists by pointing out such subse 956 quent events to the court including the appellate court
In such a situation it would be incorrect to say that as a decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the Court to take into consideration subsequent events
The tenant can be precluded from so contending only when 3 decree or order for eviction has become final
Pages 606 607
Justice RS Pathak who concurree with Justice DA Desai and Justice Venkataramiah expressed the same view thus It is well settled now that in a proceeding for the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement under a statute controlling the eviction of tenants unless the statute prescribes to the contrary the requirement must continue to exist on the date when the proceeding is finally disposed of either in appeal or revision by the relevant authority
That position is indisputable
Page 624
In Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata section Guram  it has been observed that In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court can go into the question of facts or look into the evidence if justice so requires it
But it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction in the absence of clear cut down reasons where the question depends upon the appreciation of evidence
It also should not interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal or court except where the finding is perverse in law in the sense that no reasonable person properly instructed in law could have come to such a finding or there is any misdirection in law or a view of fact has been taken in the teeth of preponderance of evidence or the finding is not based on any material evidence or it has resulted in manifest injustice
Except to that limited extent the High Court has no jurisdiction
 In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor  General Traders  it has been observed by this Court that For making the right or remedy claimed by the party just 957 and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities the court can and in many cases must take cautious cognizance of events and development subsequent tot he institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed
On both occasions the High Court in revision correctly took this view
The later recovery of another accommodation by the landlord during the pendency of the case has as the High Court twice pointed out a material bearing on the right to evict in view of the inhibition written into section 103iii itself
The High Court was right in taking into consideration the facts which came into being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings
 Similar observation has been made in Hasmat Rai  Anr
vs Raghunath Prasad It is immaterial that the amendment was sought more than three years after possession of the portion had passed to the respondent
The High Court was bound to take the fact into consideration because as is well settled now in a proceeding for the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement under a statute controlling the eviction of tenants unless the statute prescribes to the contrary the requirement must continue to exist on the date when the proceeding is finally disposed of either in appeal or revision by the relevant authority
The position to my mind is indisputable
The High Court should have allowed the amendment In Amarjit Singh vs Smt
Khatoon Quamarain  it has been observed by this Court that Administration of justice demands that any changes either in fact or in law must be taken cognizance of by the Court but that must be done in a cautious manner of relevant facts
Therefore subsequent events can be taken cognizance of if they are relevant and materiel
 On a conspectus of all these decisions rendered by this Court 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 sues 958 tion of bona fide requirement
Therefore 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 and in coming to a firm finding that the plaintiff appellant having constructed a spacious bungalow where she with the members of her family had been residing there is no reasonable and bona fide requirement for the plaintiff to get a decree of ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises in as much as the first floor of the suit premises as well as the second floor could be conveniently used for opening the office of Tax Consultancy of plaintiff s husband who previously worked with one Mr Gandhi in a partnership firm which partnership had been dissolved after Mr Gandhi s son came to practice with his father
It is also relevant to consider in this connection the observations of this Court in Bega Begum and Ors
vs Abdul Ahad Khan and Ors  as regards the meaning of the words reasonable requirement and own occupation  as used in Section 11h of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act 1966
It has been held that the words reasonable requirement undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish
The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire
In the instant 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 opining 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
It will not be out of place to mention in this connection that Amritlal Mutha husband of the appellant has stated in the additional affidavit filed in this Court that Dr Abhey A Mutha son of the appellant had purchased a flat on ownership basis in Co partnership Society named Amrita Kunj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd situated at 3245 Shivaji Nagar Pune 410005
This if taken notice of will affirm the finding of the High Court that the appellant failed to prove her bona fide and reason 959 able need for the suit premises for opening the Tax Consultancy Office for her husband
Besides the contentions referred to hereinbefore no other contention has been advanced before this Court
Therefore this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed
The judgment and order of the High Court is upheld
In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs
YLlal Appeal failed


Summary:
The respondents are manufacturers of high strength spirit
They also used to manufacture and bottle military rum under a licence and supply the same to the defence personnel inside and outside the State of UP
The excise duty on military rum for export was Rs7 per LP Litre while the rate for consumption within the State was Rs21 per L P Litre
An allowance upto 05 per cent for wastage during transit by leakage evaporation etc
was provided
Against a proper permit the respondents supplied rum to the Officer Commanding Rail Road Depot
ASC Pathankot at the distillery premises and the consignments were taken by the consignees under the seal of the railway authorities to their respective destinations
By a notification dated March 26 1979 issued in super session to earlier notification the Governor was pleased to direct that with effect from April 1 1970 duty shall be imposed on country spirit at the rates mentioned in the schedule and that the duty was payable before issue from the distillery or bonded warehouse concerned save in the case of issued under bond
Accordingly a notice was issued to the respondents demanding Rs429555P on the wastage which was termed as excess transit wastage of rum calculated at the maximum rate of Rs21 per L P Litre
The representation against the demand having been rejected they filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the orders and praying for a mandamus commanding the State of UP not to realise or adjust any amount of duty towards wastage from the respondents  advance duty account and restraining them from giving effect to the impugned orders
The High Court allowed the respondents  writ petition holding that the State of UP and the Excise authorities were not entitled to levy 169 excise duty on the wastage of liquor in transit
Hence this appeal by the State
On the question whether differential duty is leviable
under the Act and the Rules
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD The Act having provided for fixed wastage allow ance also in effect provided that the excess above the allowable wastage will be taxed
It cannot therefore be said that no such charging up of excise duty on the excess wast age in transit could be validly made
179E Absolute equality and justice is not attainable in taxing laws
Legislature must be left to decide the State policy within constitutional limitations
179F Rules 636 and 814 are of regulatory character and they are precautionary against perpetration of fraud on the excise revenue of the exporting State
A statute has to be construed in the light of the mischief it was designed to remedy
180D In the instant case the military rum was obtained for the purpose of export and the lower export duty was paid and only when the rum did not result in export the question of imposing the differential duty arose
The notion of the excise duty being changed or cancelled on account of what transpires later is not foreign to excise law
182H Drawback means the repayment of duties or taxes previ ously charged on commodities from which they are relieved on exportation
183B The system of charging up the duty on the subsequent event of non export cannot therefore be said to be irre spective of production or manufacture
183C In the instant case if it is proved to the satisfaction of the appropriate authorities that counter vailing duty had been paid on the entire consignment irrespective of the wastage then the question would arise as to whether the wastage could be ignored altogether by the exporting State as was done by the importing State
183D AB Abdulkadir vs State of Kerala   Bimal Chandra Banerjee vs State of Madhya Pradesh 467 State of Mysore  Ors
vs Ms D Cawasji and Co   Ms Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd vs Excise Ms Mc Dowell and Co Ltd vs Commercial Tax Officer VII Circle Hyderabad   Kalyani Stores vs State of Orissa and Ors   Excise Commissioner UP vs Ram Kumar and State of Madhya Pradesh vs Firm Gappulal   referred to
Ajudhia Distillery Rajaka Sahaspur vs State of UP and Anr 1980 Taxation Law Repons 2262 overruled