Civil Revision No.2483 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2483 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 29, 2008 Avtar Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Bhupinder Singh & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.I.S.Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against his order of eviction, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition to impugn the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority, Ambala. The landlord-respondent had filed an eviction petition on the grounds of Civil Revision No.2483 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.5.1995 to 31.10.1998, impairment of the demised shop by damaging the wall by opening a door and for sub- letting. Besides, the grounds of nuisance and need of the same for settling his son were also raised. The petitioner contested the petition denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is pleaded that the petitioner has become owner by way of adverse possession as he had been in occupation of this shop since 1949. He, however, tendered arrears of rent and controverted all the remaining grounds including the one regarding personal necessity. The Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent-landlord was able to establish the ground of personal necessity and use of the same by son of the respondent. The Appellate Court has also up-held the said finding, which is now impugned before this court through the present revision petition. Before the Appellate Court as well as before this court, the petitioner has relied upon a subsequent event relating to death of Jatinder Singh son of the respondent-landlord to urge that the ground of personal necessity for settling the son would now no more be available as the son had died on 8.12.2007, three days after the date of eviction order passed by the court of Rent Controller. While dealing with this aspect, the Appellate Court found that this subsequent event would not make much difference as with the death of the son of the respondent, the ground of personal necessity would not come to an end. Whereas the petitioner has sought support from Civil Revision No.2483 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : the judgment of this court in the case of Raj Kumar Vij Versus Hem Raj Singla and others, 2007(2) Rent Control Reporter 597 to say that the personal necessity must continue to exist till the final determination of the case. The respondent-landlord, on the other hand, contended that the need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of filing of the eviction petition and would not depend upon the subsequent event that may take place. In this regard, support is sought from Usha P.Kuvelkar & others Versus Ravindra Subral Dalvi, 2008(1) Civil Court Cases 290. The primary submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that subsequent event relating to the death of the son of the respondent-landlord is required to be taken into consideration since the need was pleaded on the ground of settling the son, who had expired on 8.12.2007. When asked about the mode of bringing this subsequent event on record, the counsel could only say that it was pleaded in the grounds of appeal. Nothing else is submitted in this regard. Similar issue came up for consideration before this court in Civil Revision No. 833 of 2002 decided on January 30, 2008. After making reference to number of judgments, like Baba Kashinath Bhinge Vs. Samast Lingayat Gavali,1995(1) RCR 518, Rabindra Kumar Ghosel Vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1409 and Ram Kumar Barnwal Versus Ram Lakhan (dead), 2007(2) RLR 32, the court has held that the ratio in this regard, which can be culled out, is that court is not precluded from taking “cautious cognizance” of subsequent events or facts to mould relief. Civil Revision No.2483 of 2008 (O&M) : 4 : In Baba Kanshinath's case (supra), it is held that decree of ejectment cannot be granted if the need did not continue to exist at the time of passing the decree. In Rabinder Kumar Ghosel's case (supra), it is viewed that High Court in a revision is bound to take note of subsequent event in disposing of the proceeding. In Ram Kumar Barnwal's case (supra), it is held that the court has power to take note of subsequent events and to mould the relief if the relief originally claimed has by reason of subsequent events become inappropriate and cannot be granted and also where taking note of subsequent event and changed circumstances would shorten litigation. The learned counsel has also made reference to Atma S.Berar Versus Mukhtiar Singh, 2003 AIR (SC) 624, where it is held that court has to take note of subsequent events provided the subsequent events are brought promptly to the notice of the court. It has further been held in this case that it should be brought to the notice of the court consistently with rules of procedure enabling the court to take note of such events and affording the opposite party an opportunity of meeting or explaining such events. No doubt, subsequent events can be taken into consideration, but it has generally been viewed that bonafide need of a landlord is to be examined on the date of institution of the proceedings. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of Shakuntala Bai and others Versus Narayan Das and others, (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 772 and Shantilal Thakordas and others Versus Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2358, where it is held that right to sue even on account of death of a Civil Revision No.2483 of 2008 (O&M) : 5 : landlord would survive. In Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. Versus Vimalabai Prabhulal and others, 2005(8) Supreme Court Cases 252, it is held that the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying landlord a relief while litigation at last reaches the final stages. It is held that while considering the effect of subsequent event, the rights and obligations of parties are to be determined on date of petition and subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding relief, provided such events are of such a nature and dimension as to completely eclipse the need and make it lose significance altogether. Reference can also be made to the case of Kamleshwar Prasad Versus Pradumanju Agarwal (dead) by LR's,. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2399 to observe that bona fide need for starting business does not lapse on the death of landlord as the business can be carried out by a widow. In this regard reference is also made to Gaya Prasad Versus Pradeep Shrivastava, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 803, according to which the crucial date for deciding the bona fide need is the date of application and subsequent events pendente lite can be taken into consideration only when the need of a landlord is completely eclipsed by subsequent events. It is further held in Ramesh Kumar Versus Kesho ram, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 700 that the court can take into consideration subsequent events if same has a material bearing on the relief. Much emphasis laid by the counsel for the petitioner on the subsequent event relating to the death of the son of the respondent-landlord, in my view, would not come to his rescue. Subsequent events, no doubt, can be taken into consideration as Civil Revision No.2483 of 2008 (O&M) : 6 : noticed, but the moot points still would remain as to the effect thereof on the relief claimed or granted. The ratio of law as would emerge from these judgments is that bonafide need of a landlord has to be examined on the date of institution of proceedings. The subsequent event even in regard to the death of a landlord is to be taken into consideration and would have the affect on the relief if the need of the landlord is completely eclipsed by such subsequent events. The bonafide requirement accordingly is to be seen and considered when the suit is filed. It is required to be noticed in this case that the bonafide need of the landlord was to the effect that he wanted to settle his son and start a business with his son ,who is no more. On the basis of the pleas that have been made in this case, it cannot be said that with the death of son of the respondent-landlord, his need would get completely eclipsed. The landlord still has to survive himself for which he needs to do some work. The argument raised by the learned counsel that landlord is otherwise too old can not be appreciated much. Concededly, the petitioner is elder brother of the respondent-landlord. If he can validly carry on the business then certainly his younger brother cannot be burdened with infirmity of not being in any position to conduct business or use this shop for his survival. Otherwise also, mere plea raised in the grounds of appeal as has been done in this case in regard to subsequent event would not be a permissible procedural mode under law to bring this subsequent event on record. The Rent controller has rightly referred to the case of Civil Revision No.2483 of 2008 (O&M) : 7 : Usha P.Kuvelkar (supra) to say that on the death of a landlord during the pendency of appeal, his legal heirs are entitled to defend the appeal and benefit accruing to them under the decree. Mention may also be made here that in rent petitions, the need of a son, wife or dependents is always considered to be a personal need of the landlord himself. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which may call for interference. The revision is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner would hand over the vacant possession to the landlord within a period of four months from today, which is granted to the petitioner as is prayed. The petitioner would appear before the Rent Controller and file an undertaking within a period of one month that he will hand over the vacant possession of the demised shop on or before 29.8.2008. He would also deposit the arrears of rent due. April 29, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE