NARASIMHA Vs. YELLAPPA AMHASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the tenant under S. 50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, is directed against an order made by the Second Addl. District Judge, Dharwar, in Civil Appeal No. 181/65, whereby the order of eviction made by the Addl. Munsiff, Hubli, in Mis. A. No. 154 of 1963, has been affirmed.

(2.) The case of the landlord is that he bona fide and reasonably requires the suit shop premises for the expansion of his cloth business which at present is being carried on in the adjoining shop premises. The tenant has resisted the petition on various grounds which it is unnecessary to set out for the purpose of the present revision. The Trial Court made a decree for eviction. The tenant, on appeal to the District Judge, filed several IAs purporting to be made under R.27, Or.41 CPC seeking to produce several photographs showing that subsequent to the order of eviction, and during the pendency of the appeal, the landlord had leased out the shop premises already in his occupation. The purpose of such production of additional evidence is to show that the need of the landlord is no longer subsisting, and, therefore, he should be non-suited. The learned District Judge while adverting to these facts, refused to accept or act on them on the ground, which in substance is to the effect, that events subsequent to the decree made by the trial Court could not be made the basis for setting aside such a decree. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision. Before proceeding to consider the question of law raised in this petition, it is relevant to reproduce the observations of the learned District Judge in this regard, occurring in para 19 of the judgment. They are as follows :-

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner-tenant, Sri R. U. Goulay the learned Counsel, submitted that subsequent events, as those concerned in the present case, could as a matter of law be taken into account in an appropriate case in order to cut short the litigation or afford redress to a paity by suitably modifying the order or decree concerned in an appeal or revision. He also contended that the provisions of R. 27 of Or. 41 C.P.C. could properly be invoked for this purpose. In support of such a proposition he relied on two decisions, one of this Court and the other of the Supreme Court. The said decisions are: Krishnappagouda v. Basawa Kom Nagangouda Patil, (1961) Mys.L.J. 888, and M/s.M.Laxmi & Co. v. Dr.Anant R.Deshpande, AIR 1973 SC. 171. On behalf of the respondent, Sri V. Tarakaram the learned Counsel, contended that even if such subsequent event could be in certain circumstances taken note of as contended for the petitioner, in matters relating to recovery of possession from a tenant, who is entitled to certain amount of protection under a Rent Act, such a course would be permissible, only when the question of possession is at large in an appeal. In other words, only in an appeal by a landlord, which can happen only when possession had been denied to him in the Court of first instance, It can be reasonably posited. that such a question of possession can be said to be at large and not when such possession has been decreed by such a Court. In the event of the latter position a tenant, in an appeal against such a decree, can be said to be seeking a review of such an Order, only on the facts and circumstances available on record on the date of the passing of the Order for possession. In support of this submission, he relied on the case of King v. Taylor, (1954) 3 All.E.R. 373. I shall now proceed to consider the decisions relied on in support of the respective submission.