RAM KUMAR BARNWAL v. RAM LAKHAN (DEAD)

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 576

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

RAM KUMAR BARNWAL v. RAM LAKHAN (DEAD).pdf

Judgment text

RAM KUMAR BARNWAL v. RAM LAKHAN (DEAD) MAY 14, 2007 [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ. ) Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation ofLetting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-s.

2I-Release petition under, by landlord-Appellant-Dismissed by Prescribed Authority under the Act-Order upheld by Appellate Court - Writ petition before High Court, during pendency ofwhich, landlord pointed out a subsequent event/changed circumstance-High Court held that even if it is found that the decisions of Courts below were erroneous in law, the matter needed to be remanded to the Prescribed Authority as the release application wasfiled long back and bona fide need and comparative hardship had changed by passage oftime-Writ petition was dismissed and the landlord was given liberty to file fresh release application-Held: The approach of High Court was clearly erroneous-High Court not justified in disposing of the writ petition in a summG1y fashion-Matter remanded to it for fresh consideration-Civil Procedure-Subsequent events during pendency of IS proceedings-Relevance of-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226.

Appellant claiming to be landlord in respect of the disputed shop filed a release petition under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Prescribed Authority, on basis ofthe report of the Commissioner, who was appointed to p make inspection of the premises, held that the petition was not maintainable. The First Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Prescribed Authority. Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, during pendency ofwhich, Appellant brought to the notice ofthe High Court a subsequent event/changed circumstance. The High Court held that even if it is found that the decisions of the Courts below are erroneous in law, the matter needed to be remanded to the Prescribed Authority as the release application was filed quarter of a century ago, and bona fide need and comparative hardship had changed by the passage of time.

The writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the Appellant to file fresh release application. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court RAMKUMARBARNWALv. RAM LAKHAN (DEAD) [PASAYAT,J. ] 577 ..... ). -- HELD:l. The question relating to relevance ofsubsequent events during pendency ofproceedings has been examined by this Court in many cases. The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystalised on the date ofthe institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied:(i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of . ;.

such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and ~ enable complete justice being done to the parties; (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the Court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. (Para 9) [581-E, F, G] Pasupu/eti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770; Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256 and Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, (1992) Supp. 2 SCC 623, relied on. 2. The High Court was not justified in disposing of the writ petition in ~ a summary fashion. The matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration keeping in view the principles set out above in the background facts. [Para 11] [585-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2480 of2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 05. 01. 2004 ofthe High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. 'Vrit Petition No. 9701 of 1983.

Jaspal Singh, Imtiaz Ahmad, Naghma Imtiaz, Abhishek Anand and V. N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. Rajiv Talwar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned ...... ). - Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court came to the conclusion that even if it is found that the decisions '-- of the Courts below are erroneous in law, the matter needs to be remanded -. I .... to the prescribed authority. A release petition was filed by the appellant claiming to be the landlord under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the 'Act'). 3. The background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows: Appellant is the owner and the landlord in respect of disputed shop situated in Moha11a Asifganj, Azamgarh City, Uttar Pradesh. Jn the year 1947 respondent no.

1 Ram Lakhan was inducted as a tenant in the shop in question on monthly rent of Rs. 40/- by the then owner. In the year 1952 the disputed shop was purchased by the appellant's mother Smt. Pyari Kunwar. After the death of his mother, appellant became owner of the property. Family ofthe appe11ant at that time was very small. Since appellant had no commercial space available he was carrying on business in a shop belonging to one Shri Jagannath which he had taken on rent. During the pendency ofthe case before the High Court, the appe11ant was evicted from the said shop and he has no other premises to carry on the business. Appe11ant has three sons. Aprut from the disputed shop, the appellant had another small shop adjacent to it. As appellant's son Asthbujhi Prasad wanted to carry on business the said shop is being used by him. Appe11ant's two other sons are unemployed and one of them has completed Chartered Accountancy course.

Due to non-availability of commercial space, the said son Kameshewar Prasad had to set up his office at a distance of I00 Kms. Since respondent no. I was repeatedly committing default in payment ofrent to the mother of the appe11ant, a suit had been filed (Suit no. 23 of 1970) for ejectment of respondent no. I on the ground of default. Though suit was decreed upto second appeal stage, in appeal the order of ejectment was set aside by this Court by judgment dated 30. 11. 1976, as respondent no. I had started depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act. In 1980, appellant moved an application under Section 2l(l)(a) ofthe Act. The same was resisted by the respondent. The Prescribed Authority on the report ofthe Commissioner, who was appointed to make inspection ofthe premises, held that the eviction petition was not maintainable. The First Appe11ant Authority upheld the order of rejection by the Prescribed Authority.

Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment and order datei:I 22. 4. 1983 of the Appellate Authority affirming order of the Prescribed Authority. Appe11ant brought to the notice of the High Court that he had been evicted from the tenanted premises ... ,, ).. ' where he was carrying on business and, therefore, he was left with no accommodation to earn his livelihood. The High Court, as noted supra, held that even if it is found that the findings of the courts below are erroneous in law the matter has remanded to the Prescribed Authority as the release application was filed quarter of century ago, and bona fide need, and comparative hardship change by the passage of time. The writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the appellant to file fresh release application. ~ 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the --.. /, High Court is clearly erroneous.

It is settled position in law that subsequent events can be taken note of. The High Court, even though referred to the relevance of the subsequent events erroneously came to the conclusion that even if the judgment and order passed by the courts below are erroneous in law, the matter will have to be remanded to the Prescribed Authority. There is no such requirement in law. In fact, after noticing that the release application was filed about quarter of century back, it is really unfortunate that the High Court instead of deciding the matter dismissed the writ petition granting liberty to file fresh release application. In other words, instead of shortening litigation the High Court's order would mean unnecessary prolongation of - law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications ofthis equitable rule are myraid. We affirm the proposition .

that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance 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 - the change in law is going to affect the rights and obligations of the parties and modify or mould the course of litigation or the relief so as to bring it in conformity with the law.

In the latter case, the party relying on the subsequent event, which consists of facts not beyond pale of controversy either as to their existence or in their impact, is expected to have resort to amendment ofpleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. Such subsequent event the Court may permit being introduced into the pleadings by way of amendment as it would be necessary to do so for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between the parties. In Trojan &Co. v. RMN. N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR (1953) SC 235 this Court has held that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found; without the amendment ofthe pleading the Court would not be entitled to modify or alter the relief. In Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho and Ors. , (1898) 25 Indian Appeals 195 (PC), their Lordships observed that, as a rule, relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. , 13.

Power of the Court to take note of subsequent events, special\y · . J at the appellate stage, came up for consideration of a Full Bench of RAM KUMAR BARNWAL v. RAM LAKHAN (DEAD)[PASAYAT, J. ] 583 y Nagpur High Court presided over by Justice Sinha (as His Lordship then was) in Chhote Khan v. Mohammad Obedalla Khan, AIR (1953) Nag 361. Hidayatullah, J. (as His Lordship then was) held, on a review ofjudicial opinion, that an action must be tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed at the commencement of an action. No doubt, Courts 'can' and sometimes 'must' take notice of subsequent events, but that is done merely 'inter partes' to shorten litigation but not to give to a defendant an advantage because a third party has acquired the right ofthe plaintiff. The doctrine itselfis ofan exceptional character only to be used in very special circumstances. It is all the -~. more strictly applied in those cases where there is a judgment under appeal.

His Lordship quoted the statement of law made by Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, J. in a series of cases that merely because the plaintiff loses his title 'pendente lite' is no reason for allowing his advers~ry to win if the corresponding right has not vested in the adversary but in a third party. In the case at hand, the defendant-appellant has simply stated the factum of proceedings initiated by HUDA against the plaintiff-respondent in an affidavit very casually filed by him. He has not even made a prayer to the Court to take notice of such ~- subsequent event and mould the relief accordingly, or to deny the ... relief to the plaintiff-respondent as allowed to him by the judgment under appeal, much less sought for an amendment of the pleadings.

The subsequent event urged by the defendant-appellant is basically a factual event and cannot be taken cognizance unless brought to the notice of the Court in accordance with established rules of procedure which if done would have afforded the plaintiff-respondent an opportunity of meeting the case now sought to be set up by the appellant. We do not think this Court would be justified in taking notice of a fact sought to be projected by the appellant in a very y· cavalier manner. The fact remains that the present one is a landlordtenant dispute and we cannot upset the relief granted by the courts below and the High Court to the plaintiff-respondent by relying on the doctrine of eviction by title paramount as it cannot be said that the proceedings initiated by HUDA against the plaintiff-respondent have achieved a finality or are such proceeding wherein the plaintiffrespondent cannot possibly have any sustainable defence. " 10. Earlier in Ramesh Kumar v. Kesha Ram, [1992] Supp.

2 SCC 623, it was held as follows: "6. The nonnal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations ofthe parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a 'cautious cognizance' of the subs,equent changes of fact and law to mould the relief. In lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri, AIR (1941) FC 5 ChiefJustice Sir Maurice Gwyer observed: (AIR p. 6): "But with regard to the question whether the court is entitled to take into account legislative changes since the decision under appeal was given, I desire to point out that the rule adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States is the same as that which I think commends itself to all three members of this Court. In Patterson v.

State ofAlabama, (1934) 294 US 600, Hughes C. J. said: 'We have frequently held that in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction we have power not only to correct error in the judgment under review but to make such disposition of the case as justice requires. And in detennining what justice does require, the court is bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which has supervened since the judgment was entered'. And in Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, [1975] l SCC 770 Justice Krishna Iyer said: (SCC p. 772, para 4). "We feel the submissions devoid of substance. First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis-a-vis circumstances which come into being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding.

Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress ofthe judicial process. Ifa 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. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. If the litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications of > this equitable rule are myraid. " 11.

Above being the position the High Court was not justified in disposing ofthe writ petition in a summary fashion. We accordingly set aside the order ofthe learned Single Judge and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration keeping in view the principles set out above in the background facts. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. °"\ 12. The appeal is allowed fo the aforesaid extent. No costs. B. BB. Appeal Partly allowed.