2 All] Mukhtar Begum & Ors. Vs. Addl. District Judge and Anr. 585 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION stage it is giving rise to indiscriminate CIVIL SIDE and frequent petitions before this Court DATED: LUCKNOW 06.05.2013 and is leading this Court to colossal delay in administration of justice, in civil BEFORE cases, in out country. I am bound to THE HON'BLE SAAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI mention that the misinterpretation of J. law by the learned Appellate Court is gross of inexcusable error. Rent Control No.29 Of 2012 Case Law discussed: Mukhtar Begum & Ors ...Petitioner AIR 2001 SC 803; 1997 AIR (SC) 2399; Versus 2008(3) ARC 198; AIR 1999 Supreme Court Addl. District Judge and AnrRespondents 3029 Counsel for the Petitioner: (Delivered by Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Sri Adnan Ahmad Siddiqi, J.) Sri Manish Misra 1. By means of this petition under Counsel for the Respondents: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Manish Kumar the petitioners have prayed for issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing U.P. Urban Buildings & Regulation the impugned order dated 08.02.2012 (Letting and Rent Control) Act 1972- passed by Additional District Judge Section-27(7)- Application to release (Court No.7), Unnao in Rent Appeal No. accommodation by Land Lord on ground 1 of 2011. of bonafied need-allowed by Prescribed authority-during pendancy of rent control appeal-land lord died-application 2. Brief facts of the case are that the to substitute the heirs as well as petitioners filed P.A. Case No.14 of 2007 bonafide requirement of substituted land for release of accommodation under lord-rejection on ground after death of Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Rent Act, original land lord bonafide need 1972 which was allowed by the learned automatically comes to an end-held-such approach unknown to judicial system- prescribed authority vide judgment and unreasonable-set-a-side-consequential order dated 19.01.2011, against which the direction given. tenants preferred the instant appeal in which they moved an application No. 4C Held: Para-12 to the effect that the landlord has died on By the impugned order the learned 14.03.2011 (during pendency of appeal). Appellate Court has summarily thrown out the landlord in a surreptitious The case was instituted by him on the manner by applying its own whims. It is ground of personal need and requirement well known that Judges must administer which has vanished due to death, and as law according to the provisions of law. It such, the cause of action has perished. is the bounden duty of Judges to discern The petitioners filed objection 50C legislative intention in the process of against this application, in which the adjudication. Justice administered according to individual's whim, desire, application was opposed on the ground inclination and notion of justice would that subsequent to the death of landlord, lead to confusion, disorder and chaos. his widow and two sons have become Since such tendency is in its primary employment-less and have no source of 586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 income and, as such, cause of action has the need of the deceased" But in spite of not come to an end to which the tenant this provision of law, the learned filed rejoinder application alleging therein appellate court has observed that need of that his three sons are unemployed. It has the landlord has come to an end. The further been alleged that since substitution learned appellate court has rejected the has rightly been carried out in the appeal impugned application paper no. 49(a) and which shows that bonafide requirement of set aside the judgment and order of the landlord has also died. release dated 22.01.2011 and has given a liberty to the landlord to move fresh 3. The learned appellate court application for release under Section 21 of reached to the conclusion that prescribed U.P. Rent Act. The impugned order is, authority has allowed the application on itself, violative of the express provision the basis of bonafide requirement of the contained in sub-section 7 of Section 27 deceased landlord. The landlords who are of U.P. Rent Act No.XIII of 1973 the petitioners before the learned Appellate intention of the legislature is that, where, Court have moved amendment application during the pendency of application for paper No. 49A seeking addition of release, the landlord dies, his legal bonafide requirement of the sons of the representatives shall be entitled to deceased landlord, who are petitioners prosecute such application further on the before this Court. It was sought to be basis of their own need in substitute of the amended that the two sons of the need of the deceased. The point sought to deceased landlord have learnt be urged is that, subsequent development photography and computer along with shall have to be taken into account in their father and they have no other eviction proceedings, particularly even engagement and after the death of the eviction is sought by a landlord on the father they have no source of income. ground that the bonfide need the building This amendment application has been for his own use or for the use of any opposed by the tenant opposite party member of family. through objection paper No. 57(a). Aggrieved by rejection of application 49- 6. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in A and the release petition, the landlords Gaya Prasad Vs. Praddep Srivastava have preferred the instant petition. (AIR 2001 SC 803) which is extracted below:- 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. "We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides of 5. The learned appellate court has the requirement of the landlord is the date observed that under Section 21(7)13 of of his application for eviction. The U.P. Rent Act, 1972, the legal antecedent days may perhaps have utility representatives of landlord who died for him to reach the said crucial date of during the pendency of the application consideration. If every subsequent under clause 9(a) of Sub-section 1, such development during the post petition legal representatives shall be entitled period is to be taken into account for prosecuted such application "further on judging the bona fides of the requirement the basis of their own need in substitute of pleaded by the landlord there would 2 All] Mukhtar Begum & Ors. Vs. Addl. District Judge and Anr. 587 perhaps be no end so long as the be determined as they were when the lis unfortunate situation in our litigative slow commenced and the only exception is that process system subsists. During 23 years the court is not precluded from moulding after the landlord moved for eviction on the reliefs appropriately in consideration the ground that his son needed the of subsequent events provided such events building, neither the landlord nor his son had an impact on those rights and is expected to remain idle without doing obligations. What the learned Chief any work, lest, joining any new Justice observed therein is this: assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his "The normal rule is that in any requirement to occupy the building. It is a litigation the rights and obligations of the stark reality that the longer is the life of parties are adjudicated upon as they the litigation the more would be the obtain at the commencement of the lis. number of developments sprouting up But this is subject to an exception. during the long interregnum. If a young Wherever subsequent events of fact or law entrepreneur decides to launch a new which have a material bearing on the enterprise and on that ground he or his entitlement of the parties to relief or on father seeks eviction of a tenant from the aspects which bear on the moulding of the building, the proposed enterprise would relief occur, the court is not precluded not get faded out by subsequent from taking a cautious cognizance of the developments during the traditional subsequent changes of fact and law to lengthy longevity of the litigation. His mould the relief." need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would 7. In the case of Kamleshwar remain intact. All that is needed is to Prasad Vs. Pradumanju Agarwal erase the patina and see the gloss. It is reported in 1997 AIR (SC) 2399 the pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after "Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel passing through all the previous levels of appearing for the appellant in this Court the litigation, merely on the ground that urged that the person for whose bona fide certain developments occurred pendente requirement the order of eviction has lite, because the opposite party succeeded been passed by the appellate authority in prolonging the matter for such unduly having died during the pendency of the long period. writ petition. The said bonafide requirement no longer subsists and We cannot forget that while consequently the High Court should have considering the bona fides of the need of taken that fact into consideration and the landlord the crucial date is the date of should have interfered with the order petition. In Remesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram passed by the appellate authority for the [1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 623] a two-Judge eviction of the tenant. Bench of this Court (M.N.