NABI AHMED Vs. RAMPRAKASH RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court must open with a note of sympathy with the lot of landlords to which Matadeen, plaintiff/respondent, belonged. The landlord, I must say the poor landlord, was running a shop in tenanted premises. He filed a suit or ejectment of the tenant/appellant on the ground of his genuine need of doing business in the suit accommodation. The suit was filed on 18.11.1971. Eighteen years have elapsed, but the litigation could not achievie a finality. Thanks to the laws delays and ingenuity of scrupulous tenant.

(2.) PENDING the appeal before this Court, the landlord plaintiff/respondent died. The tenant/appellant readily proved an application bringing the legal representatives on record, but only to submit that the appeal forcefully submitted that the need has come to an end with the landlord and for this reason alone the appeal should be allowed, setting aside the decrees of the Courts below and dismissing the suit. The sinking ship of the Suits is sought Courts below and dismissing the suit. The sinking ship of the Suits is sought to be rescued by the legal representatives brought on record by submitting an application for amendment of the plaint. The legal representatives propose to plead that the same business which was run by late Matadeen, is sought to be run by Gyan Prakash, the eldest son of Matadeen, he having been rendered destitute for the time being in view of the landlord Matadeen, having vacated the tenanted shop where late Matadeen used to run his business, while his tenant does not wish to vacate the shop in his possession.

(3.) A number of authorities were cited by both the learned counsel in support of their respective contentions which hardly need enumeration for they speak nothing else but the well settled principles of law. The need of the landlord as pleaded by him must survive till the decree achieves the finality and any subsequent event negativing the need would have the effect of setting aside the decree though the need was upheld by the Courts below. Ordinarily one cause of action would not be permitted to be substituted by the other which would have the effect of changing the nature of the suit. At the same time, the Courts would not refuse to notice the subsequent event and moulding the relief suitably so as to advance the cause of justice.