9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (3) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt presented for our scrutiny and make short shrift of it as it merits little more. The appellant, a landlord of a large building, had leased out in separate portions his building to several tenants. One of such tenants is the respondent. The former resolved to start a business in automobile spares and claimed eviction of the respondent by Rent Control proceedings, under s. 10(3) (iii) (a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The petition was resisted and the Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The appeal by the landlord failed but, in revision, the High Court chose to remand the case to the appellate authority. The litigation lengthened further because the latter, after hearing partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsic battle lasting over six years, the landlord lost even the flickering hope of success before the trial Court as a result of supererogatory revision to the High Court. It is against this adverse decision he has, by special leave, come to this Court. Two submissions were advanced by Sri K. S. Ramamurthy to salvage his client's case. He argued that it was illegal for the High Court to have taken cognisance of subsequent events, disastrous as they proved to be. Secondly, he urged that once the High Court held-as it did that the appellate tribunal acted illegally in remitting the whole case to the Rent Controller, it could not go further to dismiss his whole eviction proceedings, a misfortune heavier than would have been, had he not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the 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 s. 10(3) (iii) itself. We are not disposed to disturb this approach in law or finding of fact. The law we have set out is of ancient vintage. We will merely refer Lo Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri ([1940] F.C.R. 85) wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts which have come into existence after the decree appealed against. The High Court, in this case, in the concluding stages slightly self-contradicted itself and observed : 'the civil revision petition cannot be entertained' and proceeded further to state : 'It will not be desirable that I should exercise my discretion in directing an amendment of the petition'. In conclusion, the Court did interfere in revision by setting aside the order of remittal to the Rent Controller and dismissing the eviction petition, leaving the near decade-old litigation to be reopened in a fresh unending chapter of forensic fight. The learned Judge gave little comfort to the litigant who had come with a proved case of bona fide requirement to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
