9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n within the meaning of Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1965. The prayer for eviction was opposed by the tenant, inter alia, on the ground that the owners did not require the demised premises and that the tenant would find it difficult to shift its business to any other premises on account of non-availability of a suitable accommodation for being so. The Rent Controller eventually came to the conclusion that the owners had failed to establish their bona fide requirement of premises. The Rent Controller held that the owners had shifted their residence from Cochin and were living with their daughter and son-in-law who were running a nursing home in that city. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, the owners appealed to the Appellate Authority who affirmed the decision taken by the Rent Controller holding that the owners were residing with their daughter and son-in-law at Ernakulam in a building owned by the owners. The Appellate Authority also found that the owners had a cottage at Kodaikanal and that being fairly old had no reason to shift back to Ernakulam in search of better medical facilities especially when their own son-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tituted by the deceased-owners of the demised property could be continued by the legal heirs left behind by them. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel, appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased-appellant contended that it was permissible for the legal heirs to continue the present proceedings and seek eviction of the tenant on the basis of the requirement pleaded by the erstwhile owners in the eviction petition filed by them. The rights and obligations of the parties, argued Mr. Vishwanathan, get crystallized as on the date of the filing of the petition. Any subsequent development, according to the learned counsel, would be irrelevant to the maintainability or the continuance of the proceedings after the death of the original petitioners. Reliance in support of that submission was placed by the learned counsel upon the decisions of this Court in Shamshad Ahmad vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (2008 (9) SCC 1), Maganlal Vs. Nanasaheb (2008 (13) SCC 758), Pratap Rai Tanwani Vs. Uttam Chand (2004 (8) SCC 490), Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava (2001 (2) SCC 604), Kamleshwar Prasad Vs. Pradumanju Agarwal (1997 (4) SCC 413), Shakuntala Bai Vs. Narayan Das (2004 (5) SCC 772), G.C. Kapoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be entitled to be put in possession unless he proves that he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him." 9. It is not in dispute that in the eviction petition the owners had pleaded their own requirement for the premises to be occupied by them for residential as well as commercial purposes. The eviction petition was totally silent about the requirements of any member of the family of the owners- petitioners leave alone any member of their family who was dependant upon them. That being so the parties went to trial before the Rent Controller on the basis of the case pleaded in the petition and limited to the requirement of the owners for their personal occupation. Neither before the Rent Controller nor before the Appellate Authority was it argued that the requirement in question was not only the requirement of the petitioner-owners of the premises but also the requirement of any other member of their family whether dependant upon them or otherwise. Not only that, even in the petition filed before this Court the requirement pleaded was that for the deceased-widowed owner of the demised premises and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o relief claimed by a party, such subsequent events cannot be shut out from consideration. What the Court in such a situation is expected to do is to examine the impact of the said subsequent development on the right to relief claimed by a party and, if necessary, mould the relief suitably so that the same is tailored to the situation that obtains on the date the relief is actually granted. That proposition of law is, in our view, fairly settled by the decisions of this Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu case (supra). Krishna Iyer J. (as His Lordship then was) has in his concurring judgment lucidly summed up legal position in the following words: "....................If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice - subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nality in appeal for revision no decree will be justified. For that purpose the Court should take all the subsequent events into consideration and mould the relief accordingly. Following passage provides a complete answer to the question raised before us: "Equally it is settled by this Court in series of judgments and a reference in this behalf would be sufficient by citing Hasmat Rai v. Raghu Nath Prasad that in a case of bona fide requirement, it is always necessary, till the decree of eviction is passed that the landlord should satisfy that the need is bona fide and the need subsists. In a case where the need is available at the time of filing the petition, but at the time of granting decree it may not continue to subsist, in that event, the decree for eviction could not be made. Similarly pending appeal or revision or writ petition, the need may become more acute. The court should take into account all the subsequent events to mould the relief. The High Court may not be justified in omitting to consider this aspect of the matter but that does not render the judgment illegal for the subsequent discussion we are going to make." (emphasis supplied) 14. Reference may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s relevant and material....." 17. The decisions of this Court in Pratap Rai Tanwani's case (supra), Gaya Prasad's case (supra), Kamleshwar Prasad's case (supra), Shakuntala Bai's case (supra), G.C. Kapoor's case (supra), and Shantilal Thakordas Vs. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala (1976 (4) SCC 417), Pukhraj Jain Vs. Padma Kashypa (1990 (2) SCC 431) do not, in our opinion, lend any support to the proposition that subsequent developments cannot be noticed by the Court especially when such developments have an impact on the right of a party to the relief prayed for. 18. We may in particular refer to the decision of this Court in Shantilal Thakordas's case (supra) in which this Court had overruled the earlier decision rendered in Phool Rani & Ors. Vs. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia (1973 (1) SCC 688) and held that the law permitted the eviction of the tenant for the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the landlord as residence for himself and members of his family and that such a requirement was both of the landlord and the members of his family so that upon the death of this landlord the right to sue survived to the members of the family of the deceased. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se deed entered between the deceased owners and the respondents, the premises in question is constructed over an area measuring about 20 cents. The covered area is said to be 5000 sq. ft. or so. In the circumstances while the High Court was justified in tentatively revising the rent for the premises, the revision was not, in our opinion, adequate. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that instead of ₹ 10,000/- determined by the High Court, the respondents shall pay ₹ 15,000/- per month towards rent w.e.f. 1.11.2003. The same shall stand revised to ₹ 25,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2009. The differential amount thus payable shall be deposited by the respondents before the Rent Controller within six months from today whereupon the Rent Controller shall take steps to disburse the same to the appellants, the current owners of the premises. Needless to say that the revision ordered by us is also tentative and shall not prevent the parties from seeking determination of the fair rent for the premises by instituting proceedings before the competent Court/authority in accordance with law. 22. With the above modification, this appeal is dispo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
