RENT ACT

Rent Act - Bona fide requirement of son – Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit –  However, in appropriate cases, court can take note of all the subsequent events -  Court may permit subsequent event being introduced into the pleadings by way of amendment as it would be necessary to do so for the performance of determining the rule in controversy for the parties provided certain conditions are being satisfied as held in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256 - After filing of suit adjacent shop ordered to be vacated by other tenant  for the bona fide requirement of respondent-landlord's another son - Court would not be justified in taking notice of such a subsequent fact sought to be projected by the appellant to oppose the relief granted by the courts below -  In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the subsequent event relied upon by the appellant - tenant cannot be taken cognizance - Application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to bring on record the additional documents to show that the respondent-landlord after the filing of the suit obtained vacant possession of the adjacent shop from another tenant is concerned, is of no avail to the appellant-tenant - High Court rightly held that there is no ground to entertain the additional documents and no substantial question of law arises - CPC , Order 41 Rule 27. (2018)2 Supreme Court e@Journal 1885

 

Rent Act - Bona fide requirement of son – Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit – Mere fact that the son of the landlord was involved in another business subsequently, the bona fide need of the premises cannot be doubted - It would be  inappropriate to expect the son of the landlord to sit idle without doing any work till the eviction petition is decided on the basis of the bona fide requirement - If there is categorical averment by the landlord that the premises is required for his son; engaging in the business of utensils in the meanwhile, cannot be a ground to deny a decree for eviction. (2018)2 Supreme Court e@Journal 1885

 

Crucial date for deciding the bona fide requirement of the landlord, is the date on which the suit was filed for eviction and that the subsequent event cannot eclipse the said bona fide requirement unless the subsequent event overshadows the requirement of the landlord. Court held that the crucial date for deciding as to bona fide requirement of landlord is the date of his application for eviction. Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604. Referred in (2018)2 Supreme Court e@Journal 1885

 

Court may permit subsequent event being introduced into the pleadings by way of amendment as it would be necessary to do so for the performance of determining the rule in controversy for the parties provided certain conditions are being satisfied. Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256, Referred in (2018)2 Supreme Court e@Journal 1885

 

 

Normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtained at the commencement of the litigation. Whenever, there is subsequent events of fact or law, which have a material barring on the rights of the parties to relief or on the aspects of moulding appropriate relief to the parties, the court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief. Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram (1992) Supp 2 SCC 623) Referred in (2018)2 Supreme Court e@Journal 1885

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*


Supreme Court e@journal
PUNJAB LAW REPORTER


Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.