RAM NIBAS GAGAR Vs. DEBOJYOTI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ENTS filed a suit for eviction of the tenant-appellant from a shop situated on the ground floor and a room situated on the first floor alleging that the premises were required bona fide by the landlord for his own occupation mainly for commencing cloth business in the shop, a ground available under section 5(1)(c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The ground for eviction was held to be proved by the trial court as also by the appellate court. A revision preferred by the tenant in the High Court was also dismissed. This is an appeal filed by the tenant by special leave.

(2.) SO far as the finding of the trial court upheld by the first appellate court and by the High Court in revision based on the averments made in the plaint is concerned, no fault can be found therewith. What we are called upon to consider in this appeal is the impact of subsequent events to which the tenant-appellant invited the attention of the first appellate court as also of this court by moving applications. We will deal with the two applications to examine if any of the two applications satisfied the requirement of bringing such subsequent events on record of which a court of law is bound to take notice and whether such subsequent events ought to have been inquired into for disentitling the landlord-respondent from decree for eviction as granted by the trial court.

(3.) THE application dated 9.1.1990 filed before the first appellate court is a vague and bald application. It was alleged that "during the pendency of the suit" the landlord had given on tenancy to (i) Khan jewellers; (ii) Tarak certain premises. No date of alleged creation of any of the two tenancies is given in the application so as to determine the date of subsequent event. THEre is no such averment made as to the accommodation which is alleged to have been let out to the two tenants during the pendency of the suit as would enable determination of nature and extent of the accommodation and whether such accommodation would have been sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the landlord in the submission of the tenant. THE subsequent event is stated to have taken place during the pendency of the 'suit' and no reason is assigned why the attention of the trial court seized of the suit was not invited to the subsequent event and the application was being moved belatedly for the first time in first appeal. What is more, from a perusal of the judgment of the appellate court we do not find the application having been pressed by the tenant-appellant thereat before the appellate court. THE impugned judgment of the High Court also does not show any grievance having been raised by the tenant-petitioner thereat complaining that the application moved before the appellate court did not receive the consideration of the appellate court and prejudice having resulted therefrom to the tenant-petitioner in the High Court.