[2017) I S.C.R. 897 NIDHI A v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. · (Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 20 I 7) FEBRUARY 07, 2017 B [DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.)

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - s.2J(J)(a) - Release of building under occupation of tenant - Release sought by landlady on the ground ca/bona fide requirement for her grandparents -Prescribed Authority holding that balance of convenience was in favour of the landlady, found that she required the premises bona fide - Appellate court held that need for tenanted premises was not based on bona fide requirement - The High Court held that the alleged bona fide need extinguished in view of the subsequent circumstance viz. marriage D of the landlady - On appeal, held: Though the court has the power to take note of the. subsequent events, court has to consider the effect of subsequent development on the bona fide need of the landlord - For the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona fide need, comparative hardship of the parttes have to be taken into Econsideration - In the present case though the landlady, during pendency of the appeal, got married, but still her requirement to accommodate the grandparents continued - The subsequent event of marriage of landlady did not extinguish her c/qim for requirement considering the comparative hardship in the facts of the present case - The High Court, while taking note of subsequent events, F failed to consider comparative hardship to the landlady - Rent Control and Eviction.

Rent Control and Eviction - Landlord-tenant dispute - The legislations made for dealing with !::::dlord-tenant disputes are pro-tenant - The court tends to bend tu"'"'ds the tenant in order to do G ;ustice - But in the process of doing justice, the court cannot be over-zealous' and forget its duty towards !h" landlord. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The legislations made for dealing with such H 897 898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. .A landlord-tenant disputes were pro-tenant as the court tends to bend towards the tenant in order to do justice with the tenant; but in the process of doing justice, the Court cannot be over zealous and forget its duty towards the landlord also as ultimately, it is the landlord who owns the property and is entitled tO possession of the same when he proves his bona fide beyond B reasonable doubt. [Para 13] (904-B-C] 2. Section 2l(l)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 shows that the landlord of rented property is entitled to the vacant possession of his rented premises in the event of his bona fide requirement c of the said premises for his own residential or professional requirements or for any person related to him. [Para 11] [902-E; 903-A-B]

3. Ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallised on th_e date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power D to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Though the court has the power to take note of the subsequent events, court has to consider the effect of subsequent development on the bona fide need of the landlord. [Paras 15, 16] [904-E; 905-E-FJ E Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad (1981) 3 SCC 103 : (1981) 3 SCR 605; Ramesh Kumar v. Kesha Ram (1992) Suppl. (2) SCC 623: Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal (2002) 2 SCC 256 : [2002] 1 SCR 359: Ram Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan (Dead) (2007) 5 SCC 660 : [2007] 6 SCR 576 - relied on. F Kedar Nath Agrawal and Anr. v. Dhanraji Devi and Anr. 2004 (4) AWC 3709 (SC) - referred to.

4. For the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona fide need of the landlord, comparative hardship to the parties G will have to be taken into consideration. In the present case, the appellant got married during the pendency of the appeal and settled with her husband; still her requirement to accommodate her parents and grandparents continued. Appellant has established her hmw fide requirement for accommodating her parents and grandparents in the suit premises merely because the appellant H NIDHI v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. 899 got married amidst the proceedings, does not extinguish her claim A for the relief of possession of the suit premises. Therefore, the subsequent event, namely, marriage of appellant does not extinguish her requirement considering the comparative hardship. The respondents have another business of sweet shop and thus, is not going to suffer, if- ordered to vacate the suit Bpremises as they can shift the place of business to some other place without suffering any loss of occupation, whereas the parents of the appellant would be subjected to hardship as she has no other premises to accommodate her grandparents as well as her parents. While taking note of the subsequent events, the High Court has not considered the comparative hardship to the c appellant and erred in declining the relief to the appellant. [Para 16] [905-F-H; 906-A-B] Case Law Reference [1'!81] 3 SCR 605 relied on Para 14 D

(1992) Suppl. (2) sec 623 relied on Para 14 (2Q02] 1 SCR 359 relied on Para 15 (2Q07] 6 SCR 576 relied on Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1008 Eof2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2013 of the High Cou11 of Judicature at Allahabad in WRIA No. 19835 of2003. Anup Bhambhani, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Advs. for the Appellant. F Arpit Maheshwari, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal by way of special leave is G preferred against the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Appeal No.19835 of 2003, wherein the High Court affirmed the order passed by Additional District Judge, Moradabad, thereby setting aside release order dated 29.10.1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority. H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1 S.C.R.

A 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant is the owner and landlord of the premises in question, which is a non-residential accommodation. Allegedly, the premises was let out by ancestors of the appellant's family when they did not require the premises for personal use as the previous owner of the accommodation Smt. Krishna Devi 'vife of Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh had adequate place to reside B in. After the demise of Smt. Krishna Devi, appellant Nidhi became the owner of the premises in question and continued to receive rent from the respondent. The appellant filed a release application being PCS No.97 of 1987, under Section 2 l(l)(a) of Uttar .Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred c to as U.P. Act XIII of 1972), seeking possession of the suit premises on the ground of her bona fide personal requirement. The appellant alleged that she is in need of the premises as the appellant wants to accommodate her grandparents in the demised house who live in village and are in need of care and medical treatment. Moreover, the appellant alleged that she and her younger sister required separate room for study. It was D alleged that the respondent carries out the said hotel business for namesake only and is being carried out by the servant of the respondent. It was further alleged by the appellant that the respondent's main business is that of a sweet shop and he has sufficient means to take some other place on rent to run his hotel business.

E 3. Respondent-tenant admitted the tenancy in the property in dispute and resisted the application for release of accommodation, claiming that the appellant and her sister live in a big house called Kath Mahal which has sufficient space comprising of large rooms and large halls. It was averred that the grandparents of the appellant are big landlords F in the village and live in a palatial house there and they are unable to climb stairs in the suit premises. Also, the alleged business of sweet shop is run by his son and the entire family is dependent upon the income from hotel business. 4. Upon consideration of evidence and on hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority held that the balance of convenience lies in G favourofthe appellant and taking into consideration the social status of family and that the grandparents of the appellant want to live with her parents, found that the appellant bona fide requires the premises and vide order dated 29. I 0.1991 allowed the application for release of suit premises. The Prescribed Authority directed the appellant-landlord to H NIDHJ v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. 901 [R. BANUMATHI, J.] compensate the respondent by giving him a sum equivalent to two years A ofrent before taking possession.

5. Respondent-tenant challenged the aforesaid order by way of Rent Control Appeal No.72of1991 under Section 22 ofU.P. Act Xlll of 1972, before the Additional District Judge at Morada bad, who vide order dated 04.02.2003, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed B by the Prescribed Authority holding that the appellant's need for the suit premises is not based on bona fide requirement and her need for accommodation is not immediate or pressing.

6.Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate court, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.19835 of2003 before the High Court of Judicature c at Allahabad. The High Court upon consideration of the facts and materials placed on record before it and after hearing the contentions of the parties before it dismissed the writ appeal holding that the relief claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent development in circumstances, become inappropriate. The High Court found that when Dthe statement of appellant was recorded, she was a student of B.Sc. and was of marriageable age and as the matter went before the appellate authority, the situation changed as the Court noticed that the appellant was married on 23.01 .1996 and her husband was a member oflndian Revenue Service who was, at that time, posted at Delhi and subsequently in Mumbai. The High Court also observed that the sisters of the appellant E also got married and were living with their husbands, elsewhere and that the alleged need had disappeared long back. The High Court relied on . the judgments of this Court in Hasmat Rai vs. Ragltunatft Prasad ( 1981) 3 SCC 103 and Kedar Nat ft Agrawal and Anr. vs. Dftanraji Devi and Anr. 2004 (4) AWC 3709 (SC), to take the cognizance of Fsubsequent events.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first appellate court and the High Court have erroneously denied the relief sought by the appellant in the release application only because during the pendency of the appeal filed by the respondent, the appellant got married which is a subsequent development which would naturally take G place and the appellant cannot be made to suffer on account of delay in adjudication. It was further contended that only because the husband of the appellant has been allotted a government accommodation, the need of the appellant did not disappear as the appellant required the scheduled premises for her own use and occupation as well as for the use and H 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. A occupation of her family and the appel Iant requires the scheduled premises for herself as well as for her parents and grandparents and her bona fide requirement has not been properly considered by the High Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court has in numerous cases held that in case of eviction on the ground of bona fide need and comparative hardship, the court must B consider the subsequent changes in events to decide the bona fide requirement of the landlord. It was further submitted that in her release application, the appellant had set up her bona fide need but failed to substantiate her stand and hence the first appellate court and the High Court rightly dismissed the release application.

c 9. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and pernsed the impugned order and other materials on record. 10. The point falling for consideration is whether the marriage of the appellant/landlady as subsequent event can extinguish the bona fide D requirement of a landlady and disentitle her for the relief sought in the release application filed prior to her marriage. 11. Before proceeding fu11her, it is apposite to have a look over the related provision under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act which deals with proceedings for release of building underoccupation of tenant, clause E (a) of sub-Section (I) of Section 21 of the Act alone is germane in the present proceedings and the said clause reads as under:-"21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.- (I) The Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction ofa tenant from F the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely-( a) thatthe building is bona fide required either in its existing forn1 or after den1olition and ne'v construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his G family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust; " H

NIDHI v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. 903 [R. BANUMATHI, J.] An analysis of the above provision would show that the landlord of rented A property is entitled to the vacant possession of his rented premises in the event of his bona fide requirement of the said premises for his own residential or professional requirements or for any person related to him.

12. In the facts of present case, the appellant-landlady herein was living in a small house with her family comprising four members B and was not able to accommodate her ailing grandparents who used to visit them frequently for medication purposes and were willing to reside with them permanently as they were living alone in their village where nobody was there to look after them. Appel Iant in order to accommodate her grandparents with them and in the light of growing needs of her and cher younger sister (who were then studying) filed the release application before the prescribed authority and the release order was granted by the prescribed authority in favour of the appellant/landlady directing respondent-tenant to handover vacant possession of suit premises to the appellant. As noticed earlier, during the pendency of appeal, preferred by the respondent-tenant, the appellant got married and settled with her D husband. The first appellate court as wel I as the High Court took note of this as subsequent development and held that the requirement no longer subsists and the claim of personal requirement has disappeared. Of course, during the pendency of !is between the parties, situation underwent a change and the appellant got married to an Indian Revenue EService Officer and started residing with him in Delhi and Mumbai etc. Though the appellant is married and settled with her husband, her bona fide requirement cannot be said to have ended as she wanted the premises not just for herself but to accommodate her parents and grandparents in the suit premises so that they can live together. The family of the appellant is still said to be residing in rented premises in Moradabad, despite having F their own suit premises to reside in. In the facts of present case, the change in subsequent events is not such that would deprive the appellant of her right to vacant possession of suit premises as it is a natural event that the daughter of the house would get married and settle with her husband. Though the appellant has got married and shifted to different Gaccommodation with her husband, the actual bona fide requirement of premises is still the same, since her parents and grandparents are still residing separately from each other with no one to look after them. More so, the appellant got married but the family stays where it is and the bona fide requirement of pre1nises for accommodation of parents H

904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. A remains the same. Being married and shifting to other place does not automatically result in extinguishing of bona fide requirement of the appellant as being the owner of property, she alone is to decide what she wants to do with her property. 13. The legislations made for dealing with such landlord-tenant B dispute 3 were pro-tenant as the court tends to bend towards the tenant in order to do justice with the tenant; but in the process of doing justice the Court cannot be over zealous and forget its duty towards the landlord also as ultimately, it is the landlord who owns the property and is entitled to possession of the same when he proves his bona fide beyond reasonable doubt as it is in the case before this Court. c I 4. First appellate court as well as the High Court observed that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant got married, her husband a member of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) posted at Delhi, Mumbai and other places and this subsequent event has extinguished the personal requirement of the appellant. In the impugned judgment, the High Court D referred to number of judgments Has111at Rai and Another vs. Raglw11atft Prasad (I 981) 3 SCC I 03; Ra111esft Kumar vs. Keslw Ram (I 992) Suppl. (2) SCC 623 and other judgments.

15. Ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power to take note of E the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Power of the court to take note of subsequent events came up for consideration in a number of decisions. In 0111 Prakash Gupta vs. Ranhir B. Goval (2002) 2 SCC 256, this Court held as under:-"11. The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties F stand crystallised on the date of the 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 !is. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the reliefaccordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by G 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 bein:; done to the parties: and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly H NIDHI v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. 905 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the A opposite party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti · Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770 this Court held that a fact arising after the !is, coming to the notice of the court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relieforthe mannerof moulding it and brought diligently to the B notice of the court cannot be blinked at. The court may in such cases bend the rules of procedure if no specific provision oflaw or rule of fair play is violated for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition that the court can, so long as the c litigation pends, take note ofupdated facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned: (i) the event should be one as would stultify or render inept the decretal remedy, (ii) rules of procedure may be bent if no specific provision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circumstance repelling D resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cognizance of subsequent events and developments should be cautious, and (iv) the rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously obeyed. Om Prakaslt Gupta's case was referred with approval in Ram EKumar Barnwal vs. Ram Lakltan (Dead) (2007) 5 SCC 660.

I 6. Though the court has the power to take note of the subsequent events, court has to consider the effect of subsequent development on the bona fide need of the landlord. For the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona fide need of the landlord, comparative hardship to Fthe parties will have to be taken into consideration. As discussed above, in the present case, the appellant got married during the pendency of the appeal and settled with her husband; still her requirement to accommodate her parents and grandparents continued. Appellant has established her bona fide requirement for accommodating her parents and grandparents in the suit premises merely because the appellant got married amidst the G proceedings does not extinguish her claim for the relief of possession of the suit premises. In our view, the subsequent event, namely, marriage of appellant does not extinguish her requirement considering the comparative hardship, it is to be pointed out that the respondents have another business of sweet shop and thus, is not going to suffer if ordered H 906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I S.C.R.

A to vacate the suit premises as they can shift the place of business to some other place without suffering any loss of occupation, whereas the parents of the appel.lant would be subjected to hardship as she has no other premises to accommodate her grand parents as well as her parents. While taking note of the subsequent events, the High Court has not considered the comparative hardship to the appellant and erred in B declining the relief to the appellant. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the prescribed authority i.e. Court of Second Upper Civil Judge, Moradabad dated 29.l 0.1991 is c restored.prescribedTheauthorityappellantpayableshallto depositthe respondentthe compensationwithin four weeksbeforefromthe today. The respondent shall handover the possession of the suit premises within one month from the date of deposit of the amount, failing which the respondent-tenant shall be liable for committing contempt of this Court. No costs. Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.

[2017) I S.C.R. 897 NIDHI A v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. · (Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 20 I 7) FEBRUARY 07, 2017 B [DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.)

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - s.2J(J)(a) - Release of building under occupation of tenant - Release sought by landlady on the ground ca/bona fide requirement for her grandparents -Prescribed Authority holding that balance of convenience was in favour of the landlady, found that she required the premises bona fide - Appellate court held that need for tenanted premises was not based on bona fide requirement - The High Court held that the alleged bona fide need extinguished in view of the subsequent circumstance viz. marriage D of the landlady - On appeal, held: Though the court has the power to take note of the. subsequent events, court has to consider the effect of subsequent development on the bona fide need of the landlord - For the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona fide need, comparative hardship of the parttes have to be taken into Econsideration - In the present case though the landlady, during pendency of the appeal, got married, but still her requirement to accommodate the grandparents continued - The subsequent event of marriage of landlady did not extinguish her c/qim for requirement considering the comparative hardship in the facts of the present case - The High Court, while taking note of subsequent events, F failed to consider comparative hardship to the landlady - Rent Control and Eviction.

Rent Control and Eviction - Landlord-tenant dispute - The legislations made for dealing with !::::dlord-tenant disputes are pro-tenant - The court tends to bend tu"'"'ds the tenant in order to do G ;ustice - But in the process of doing justice, the court cannot be over-zealous' and forget its duty towards !h" landlord. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The legislations made for dealing with such H 897 898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. .A landlord-tenant disputes were pro-tenant as the court tends to bend towards the tenant in order to do justice with the tenant; but in the process of doing justice, the Court cannot be over zealous and forget its duty towards the landlord also as ultimately, it is the landlord who owns the property and is entitled tO possession of the same when he proves his bona fide beyond B reasonable doubt. [Para 13] (904-B-C] 2. Section 2l(l)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 shows that the landlord of rented property is entitled to the vacant possession of his rented premises in the event of his bona fide requirement c of the said premises for his own residential or professional requirements or for any person related to him. [Para 11] [902-E; 903-A-B]

3. Ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallised on th_e date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power D to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Though the court has the power to take note of the subsequent events, court has to consider the effect of subsequent development on the bona fide need of the landlord. [Paras 15, 16] [904-E; 905-E-FJ E Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad (1981) 3 SCC 103 : (1981) 3 SCR 605; Ramesh Kumar v. Kesha Ram (1992) Suppl. (2) SCC 623: Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal (2002) 2 SCC 256 : [2002] 1 SCR 359: Ram Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan (Dead) (2007) 5 SCC 660 : [2007] 6 SCR 576 - relied on. F Kedar Nath Agrawal and Anr. v. Dhanraji Devi and Anr. 2004 (4) AWC 3709 (SC) - referred to.

4. For the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona fide need of the landlord, comparative hardship to the parties G will have to be taken into consideration. In the present case, the appellant got married during the pendency of the appeal and settled with her husband; still her requirement to accommodate her parents and grandparents continued. Appellant has established her hmw fide requirement for accommodating her parents and grandparents in the suit premises merely because the appellant H NIDHI v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. 899 got married amidst the proceedings, does not extinguish her claim A for the relief of possession of the suit premises. Therefore, the subsequent event, namely, marriage of appellant does not extinguish her requirement considering the comparative hardship. The respondents have another business of sweet shop and thus, is not going to suffer, if- ordered to vacate the suit Bpremises as they can shift the place of business to some other place without suffering any loss of occupation, whereas the parents of the appellant would be subjected to hardship as she has no other premises to accommodate her grandparents as well as her parents. While taking note of the subsequent events, the High Court has not considered the comparative hardship to the c appellant and erred in declining the relief to the appellant. [Para 16] [905-F-H; 906-A-B] Case Law Reference [1'!81] 3 SCR 605 relied on Para 14 D

(1992) Suppl. (2) sec 623 relied on Para 14 (2Q02] 1 SCR 359 relied on Para 15 (2Q07] 6 SCR 576 relied on Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1008 Eof2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2013 of the High Cou11 of Judicature at Allahabad in WRIA No. 19835 of2003. Anup Bhambhani, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Advs. for the Appellant. F Arpit Maheshwari, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal by way of special leave is G preferred against the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Appeal No.19835 of 2003, wherein the High Court affirmed the order passed by Additional District Judge, Moradabad, thereby setting aside release order dated 29.10.1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority. H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1 S.C.R.

A 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant is the owner and landlord of the premises in question, which is a non-residential accommodation. Allegedly, the premises was let out by ancestors of the appellant's family when they did not require the premises for personal use as the previous owner of the accommodation Smt. Krishna Devi 'vife of Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh had adequate place to reside B in. After the demise of Smt. Krishna Devi, appellant Nidhi became the owner of the premises in question and continued to receive rent from the respondent. The appellant filed a release application being PCS No.97 of 1987, under Section 2 l(l)(a) of Uttar .Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred c to as U.P. Act XIII of 1972), seeking possession of the suit premises on the ground of her bona fide personal requirement. The appellant alleged that she is in need of the premises as the appellant wants to accommodate her grandparents in the demised house who live in village and are in need of care and medical treatment. Moreover, the appellant alleged that she and her younger sister required separate room for study. It was D alleged that the respondent carries out the said hotel business for namesake only and is being carried out by the servant of the respondent. It was further alleged by the appellant that the respondent's main business is that of a sweet shop and he has sufficient means to take some other place on rent to run his hotel business.

E 3. Respondent-tenant admitted the tenancy in the property in dispute and resisted the application for release of accommodation, claiming that the appellant and her sister live in a big house called Kath Mahal which has sufficient space comprising of large rooms and large halls. It was averred that the grandparents of the appellant are big landlords F in the village and live in a palatial house there and they are unable to climb stairs in the suit premises. Also, the alleged business of sweet shop is run by his son and the entire family is dependent upon the income from hotel business. 4. Upon consideration of evidence and on hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority held that the balance of convenience lies in G favourofthe appellant and taking into consideration the social status of family and that the grandparents of the appellant want to live with her parents, found that the appellant bona fide requires the premises and vide order dated 29. I 0.1991 allowed the application for release of suit premises. The Prescribed Authority directed the appellant-landlord to H NIDHJ v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. 901 [R. BANUMATHI, J.] compensate the respondent by giving him a sum equivalent to two years A ofrent before taking possession.

5. Respondent-tenant challenged the aforesaid order by way of Rent Control Appeal No.72of1991 under Section 22 ofU.P. Act Xlll of 1972, before the Additional District Judge at Morada bad, who vide order dated 04.02.2003, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed B by the Prescribed Authority holding that the appellant's need for the suit premises is not based on bona fide requirement and her need for accommodation is not immediate or pressing.

6.Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate court, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.19835 of2003 before the High Court of Judicature c at Allahabad. The High Court upon consideration of the facts and materials placed on record before it and after hearing the contentions of the parties before it dismissed the writ appeal holding that the relief claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent development in circumstances, become inappropriate. The High Court found that when Dthe statement of appellant was recorded, she was a student of B.Sc. and was of marriageable age and as the matter went before the appellate authority, the situation changed as the Court noticed that the appellant was married on 23.01 .1996 and her husband was a member oflndian Revenue Service who was, at that time, posted at Delhi and subsequently in Mumbai. The High Court also observed that the sisters of the appellant E also got married and were living with their husbands, elsewhere and that the alleged need had disappeared long back. The High Court relied on . the judgments of this Court in Hasmat Rai vs. Ragltunatft Prasad ( 1981) 3 SCC 103 and Kedar Nat ft Agrawal and Anr. vs. Dftanraji Devi and Anr. 2004 (4) AWC 3709 (SC), to take the cognizance of Fsubsequent events.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first appellate court and the High Court have erroneously denied the relief sought by the appellant in the release application only because during the pendency of the appeal filed by the respondent, the appellant got married which is a subsequent development which would naturally take G place and the appellant cannot be made to suffer on account of delay in adjudication. It was further contended that only because the husband of the appellant has been allotted a government accommodation, the need of the appellant did not disappear as the appellant required the scheduled premises for her own use and occupation as well as for the use and H 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. A occupation of her family and the appel Iant requires the scheduled premises for herself as well as for her parents and grandparents and her bona fide requirement has not been properly considered by the High Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court has in numerous cases held that in case of eviction on the ground of bona fide need and comparative hardship, the court must B consider the subsequent changes in events to decide the bona fide requirement of the landlord. It was further submitted that in her release application, the appellant had set up her bona fide need but failed to substantiate her stand and hence the first appellate court and the High Court rightly dismissed the release application.

c 9. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and pernsed the impugned order and other materials on record. 10. The point falling for consideration is whether the marriage of the appellant/landlady as subsequent event can extinguish the bona fide D requirement of a landlady and disentitle her for the relief sought in the release application filed prior to her marriage. 11. Before proceeding fu11her, it is apposite to have a look over the related provision under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act which deals with proceedings for release of building underoccupation of tenant, clause E (a) of sub-Section (I) of Section 21 of the Act alone is germane in the present proceedings and the said clause reads as under:-"21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.- (I) The Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction ofa tenant from F the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely-( a) thatthe building is bona fide required either in its existing forn1 or after den1olition and ne'v construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his G family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust; " H

NIDHI v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. 903 [R. BANUMATHI, J.] An analysis of the above provision would show that the landlord of rented A property is entitled to the vacant possession of his rented premises in the event of his bona fide requirement of the said premises for his own residential or professional requirements or for any person related to him.

12. In the facts of present case, the appellant-landlady herein was living in a small house with her family comprising four members B and was not able to accommodate her ailing grandparents who used to visit them frequently for medication purposes and were willing to reside with them permanently as they were living alone in their village where nobody was there to look after them. Appel Iant in order to accommodate her grandparents with them and in the light of growing needs of her and cher younger sister (who were then studying) filed the release application before the prescribed authority and the release order was granted by the prescribed authority in favour of the appellant/landlady directing respondent-tenant to handover vacant possession of suit premises to the appellant. As noticed earlier, during the pendency of appeal, preferred by the respondent-tenant, the appellant got married and settled with her D husband. The first appellate court as wel I as the High Court took note of this as subsequent development and held that the requirement no longer subsists and the claim of personal requirement has disappeared. Of course, during the pendency of !is between the parties, situation underwent a change and the appellant got married to an Indian Revenue EService Officer and started residing with him in Delhi and Mumbai etc. Though the appellant is married and settled with her husband, her bona fide requirement cannot be said to have ended as she wanted the premises not just for herself but to accommodate her parents and grandparents in the suit premises so that they can live together. The family of the appellant is still said to be residing in rented premises in Moradabad, despite having F their own suit premises to reside in. In the facts of present case, the change in subsequent events is not such that would deprive the appellant of her right to vacant possession of suit premises as it is a natural event that the daughter of the house would get married and settle with her husband. Though the appellant has got married and shifted to different Gaccommodation with her husband, the actual bona fide requirement of premises is still the same, since her parents and grandparents are still residing separately from each other with no one to look after them. More so, the appellant got married but the family stays where it is and the bona fide requirement of pre1nises for accommodation of parents H

904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. A remains the same. Being married and shifting to other place does not automatically result in extinguishing of bona fide requirement of the appellant as being the owner of property, she alone is to decide what she wants to do with her property. 13. The legislations made for dealing with such landlord-tenant B dispute 3 were pro-tenant as the court tends to bend towards the tenant in order to do justice with the tenant; but in the process of doing justice the Court cannot be over zealous and forget its duty towards the landlord also as ultimately, it is the landlord who owns the property and is entitled to possession of the same when he proves his bona fide beyond reasonable doubt as it is in the case before this Court. c I 4. First appellate court as well as the High Court observed that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant got married, her husband a member of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) posted at Delhi, Mumbai and other places and this subsequent event has extinguished the personal requirement of the appellant. In the impugned judgment, the High Court D referred to number of judgments Has111at Rai and Another vs. Raglw11atft Prasad (I 981) 3 SCC I 03; Ra111esft Kumar vs. Keslw Ram (I 992) Suppl. (2) SCC 623 and other judgments.

15. Ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power to take note of E the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Power of the court to take note of subsequent events came up for consideration in a number of decisions. In 0111 Prakash Gupta vs. Ranhir B. Goval (2002) 2 SCC 256, this Court held as under:-"11. The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties F stand crystallised on the date of the 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 !is. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the reliefaccordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by G 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 bein:; done to the parties: and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly H NIDHI v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. 905 [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the A opposite party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti · Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770 this Court held that a fact arising after the !is, coming to the notice of the court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relieforthe mannerof moulding it and brought diligently to the B notice of the court cannot be blinked at. The court may in such cases bend the rules of procedure if no specific provision oflaw or rule of fair play is violated for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition that the court can, so long as the c litigation pends, take note ofupdated facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned: (i) the event should be one as would stultify or render inept the decretal remedy, (ii) rules of procedure may be bent if no specific provision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circumstance repelling D resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cognizance of subsequent events and developments should be cautious, and (iv) the rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously obeyed. Om Prakaslt Gupta's case was referred with approval in Ram EKumar Barnwal vs. Ram Lakltan (Dead) (2007) 5 SCC 660.

I 6. Though the court has the power to take note of the subsequent events, court has to consider the effect of subsequent development on the bona fide need of the landlord. For the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona fide need of the landlord, comparative hardship to Fthe parties will have to be taken into consideration. As discussed above, in the present case, the appellant got married during the pendency of the appeal and settled with her husband; still her requirement to accommodate her parents and grandparents continued. Appellant has established her bona fide requirement for accommodating her parents and grandparents in the suit premises merely because the appellant got married amidst the G proceedings does not extinguish her claim for the relief of possession of the suit premises. In our view, the subsequent event, namely, marriage of appellant does not extinguish her requirement considering the comparative hardship, it is to be pointed out that the respondents have another business of sweet shop and thus, is not going to suffer if ordered H 906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I S.C.R.

A to vacate the suit premises as they can shift the place of business to some other place without suffering any loss of occupation, whereas the parents of the appel.lant would be subjected to hardship as she has no other premises to accommodate her grand parents as well as her parents. While taking note of the subsequent events, the High Court has not considered the comparative hardship to the appellant and erred in B declining the relief to the appellant. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the prescribed authority i.e. Court of Second Upper Civil Judge, Moradabad dated 29.l 0.1991 is c restored.prescribedTheauthorityappellantpayableshallto depositthe respondentthe compensationwithin four weeksbeforefromthe today. The respondent shall handover the possession of the suit premises within one month from the date of deposit of the amount, failing which the respondent-tenant shall be liable for committing contempt of this Court. No costs. Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.