HUKUM CHANDRA (D) THR. LRS v. NEMI CHAND JAIN & Ors.

HELD : 1. 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. The 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 bearing 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. The shop vacated by other tenant is for the bona fide requirement of respondent-landlord’s another son. In that view of the matter, the 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 instant case, the subsequent event relied upon by the appellant-tenant cannot be taken cognizance. Respondent-landlord has four sons and the other shop vacated by tenant was meant for the bona fide requirement of another son. If that shop is not actually occupied by the other son, the other tenant has a right to initiate the proceedings against the landlord for his re-entry in the said adjacent shop in terms of the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that alternative accommodation was available for the respondent-landlord’s son due to vacation of the said adjacent shop by another tenant. [Paras 15, 16, 18, 19][917-D; 918-D-E, H; 919-A-B, D]