9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Rent control proceedings, eviction petition, subsequent events affecting proceedings, jurisdiction of High Court, legal remedy, right to relief, amendment of petition.
Summary: The Supreme Court judgment in the case involved a landlord who had leased out a building to several tenants, including the respondent, for starting a business in automobile spares. The landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The case went through various stages of litigation, including dismissal by the Rent Controller, remand by the High Court, and subsequent revision by the landlord to the High Court challenging the remittal of the case. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the landlord had come into possession of another accommodation, impacting the maintainability of the eviction petition under Section 10(3) (iii) of the Act. The Supreme Court addressed two main submissions made by the landlord's counsel. Firstly, the argument that it was improper for the High Court to consider subsequent events affecting the proceedings was deemed devoid of substance. The Court emphasized that the right to relief must be judged based on the circumstances at the initiation of legal proceedings, and procedural rules should serve the cause of substantial justice. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to consider updated facts that influenced the right to relief and the legality of the eviction proceedings. In support of its decision, the Supreme Court cited legal precedents emphasizing the Court's power to consider changes in fact or law that occur after the initiation of legal proceedings. The Court highlighted the principle that an appeal is akin to a re-hearing, allowing the appellate court to take into account post-decree facts and events in molding the relief to be granted. The Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the eviction petition based on subsequent events impacting the landlord's right to seek eviction. In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the parties to bear their respective costs. The Court maintained that the subsequent event of the landlord acquiring another accommodation precluded seeking eviction based on previous grounds, but allowed for amendment of the petition on legally permissible grounds relevant to eviction. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
