Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
(1) These two applications have been filed by the petitioner-landlord during the pendency of the revision petition. The first application (CM 1664/87) has been filed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, Order 7 Rule 7 and Section 151 of the CPC for bringing on record certain subsequent facts mentioned in the application. The second application (CM 2664/87) arises out of the first application and is connected therewith and seeks permission to place on record documents filed Along with this application. In order to dispose of these applications it is necessary to give brief facts of the case which are as follows.
(2) The petitioner is the landlord. On 17th November, 1968 the- premises i.e. ground floor, Bearing No. 127, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, were let by the petitioner to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 750.00 . On 19th November, 1979 the petitioner filed a petition for eviction against the tenant u/s 14(1)(e) on the ground of personal bonafide requirement pleading that the petitioner is posted at Meerut while his son is studying in Modern School, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, in 9th Class and on account of the petitioner and his family being out of Delhi the education of the petitioner''s son has suffered and, Therefore, the petitioner wants to shift his family from Meerut to live in the demised premises where also the petitioner''s son would live so that proper supervision and guidance is provided to him.
(3) The application of the tenant for leave to defend was dismissed. Consequently, by order dated 28th February, 1980, the Rent Controller, Delhi, passed the order of eviction against the tenant. However, this order was set aside by the High Court and the tenant was granted leave to defend the eviction petition. As the circumstances changed during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner sought leave of the learned Rent Controller to amend the petition for eviction. The leave was granted. The eviction petition was amended. In the amended petition for eviction it was pleaded that at the time of filing of the petition the petitioner was posted at Meerut. He believed that the respondent would vacate the premises in terms of the order dated 28th February, 1980 after expiry of six months which expired on 28th August, 1980. In the meantime the tenant filed a Civil Revision and obtained stay of dispossession from the High Court. The petitioner''s family had to shift to Delhi and look after the education of the petitioner''s son who was said to be then studying in 10th Class in Modem School, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, and took on rent one Barsati at R-652 Barsati floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 700.00 . The petitioner further pleaded that he had been transferred back to Delhi in January, 1981 and it has not been possible for him even to get allotment of government accommodation. The petitioner''s family comprises of self, his wife and two children and the existing one room accommodation on rent is grossly inadequate for petitioner''s requirement and that of his family members dependent on him. The petitioner, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC placing on record the fact that the petitioner had vacated R-652, Barsati floor. New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, on account of accommodation being insufficient and has shifted to 3/30, First Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, with effect from 1st June, 1981 on a rent of Rs. 1050.00 per month, the accommodation being one drawing-cum-dining and two bedrooms besides kitchen, bath etc. The parties led their evidence. The case set up by petitioner was that his brother Vishnu Dutt is a tenant on the first and barsati floor of the suit property. The tenant in his written statement pleaded that the said portion lies come into the possession of the petitioner. However, in evidence the tenant stated that Vishnu Dutt, brother of the petitioner, is living in the entire first floor and barsati floor of the suit property.
(4) The learned Rent Controller by order dated 27th August, 1983 held that the petitioner has failed to prove that the premises in question are required by him and for members of his family dependent upon him and accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed. Against the said order this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(5) Turning now to the application being C.M. 1664/87, the petitioner seeks leave to place on record the subsequent facts and events, namely, he remained in Delhi from January, 1981 to June, 1983 as Controller of defense Accounts and by order dated 20th July, 1983, he was transferred to Bombay where he joined on 8th August 1983; he was again transferred to Delhi in February, 1986 where he is still working as Additional Controller General of defense Accounts ; his date of birth is 24th June, 1930 and he is due to retire on 30th June, 1988 ; his son is about 22 years of age and is in Final Year in Mechanical Engineering ; his daughter is aged about 19 years and is a student of 2nd Year B.A. Along with the application the petitioner has filed order dated 25th February, 1986 issued by the Deputy Controller General of defense Accounts (Administration) showing that he reported for duty in Delhi on 25th February, 1986 and assumed charge of Additional Controller General of defense Accounts (Admn.) from the said date. The petitioner has also filed a certificate issued by his office showing that he is due to retire on 30th June, 1988. The petitioner has sought leave to place aforesaid and certain other subsequent facts stated in the application to be placed on record as the said facts have stated to have arisen after the impugned order was passed.
(6) In reply to this application the tenant has, inter alia, pleaded that Vishnu Dutt died after decision by the Rent Controller and the first and second floor of the suit property have come in possession of the petitioner as Vishnu Dutt was living alone there. In substance the plea is that other reasonably suitable residential accommodation, namely, first and second floor which was in possession of Vishnu Dutt is now available to the petitioner-landlord.
(7) After the arguments were heard and the case was reserved for judgment the second application (CM 2664/87) was filed pleading that after death of Vishnu Dutt on 12-12-1983, the first and second floor are in occupation of Anant Kaushal Son of Late Vishnu Dutt who is stated to have inherited the tenancy from his father. It is pleaded that Anant Kaushal and his sister Smt. Vatsala Khurana are the tenants on the first and second floor although only Anant Kaushal has been residing in the premises as his sister is married and lives with her husband elsewhere. It has further been pleaded that Anant Kaushal is an employee of Minerals and Metal Trading Corporation of India Ltd. He was posted in Delhi till June 1987 and was temporarily posted to Haldia (West Bengal) and has left all luggage in this house and even his car is parked outside the house and he has left his servant Pujari to look after his house who is staying in the garage on the ground floor. Along with the application certain documents have been filed to show that Anant Kaushal is in possession of first and second floor and is a tenant in the said premises. Consequently, it is pleaded that the said premises are not available to the petitioner. This application too has been opposed by the tenant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(8) Sh. Mehta, learned counsel for the tenant strenuously argued that Cm 2664/87 filed u/s 151 CPC . is not maintainable because there are specific provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 for leading additional evidence. The objection is valid. But it is hyper technical. I will treat this application as one under Order 41, Rule 27 and consider whether case has been made out for grant of permission to lead additional evidence or not.
(9) The leave to adduce additional evidence can be granted under Clause (b) of Order 41, Rule 27, by the appellate court if it requires any document to be produced or witnesses to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
(10) There is a controversy between the parties about the availability or not of other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the petitioner, In reply to Cm 1664/87, the tenant has pleaded that after death of Vishnu Dutt, petitioner is in possession oF first and second floor of this for Bagh house. There is no dispute about the death of Vishnu Dutt. The petitioner has to show that he has no other suitable residential accommodation. On the other hand if the tenant is able to show that the petitioner has other suitable residential accommodation, the petition would fail. In fact this question would have a significant bearing on the whole subject matter of controversy. The subsequent events have decisive bearing on the issues involved in this case. The courts have to take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceedings and in so doing the rules of fairness to both the sides are scrupulously to be followed. It is well settled, that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of such events (See :
(11) In the case in hand the subsequent facts pleaded came into existence after the decision by the Rent Controller. Therefore, it is necessary to find out whether the first and second floor premises of the suit properly have become available to the petitioner or not. This fact is likely to vitally affect the decision of the case one way or the other. It is not possible to do substantial justice without finding out the position with regard to first and second floor. The production of additional evidence would enable the court to justly pronounce the judgment. There is substantial cause for permitting the admission of additional evidence. I do not understand as to how the judgment reported in the case of
(12) Consequently, I permit the petitioner to lead additional evidence to prove the subsequent events pleaded in Cm No. 2664/87. For recording the additional evidence I remand the case to learned Rent Controller under Order 41, Rule 28, Code of Civil Procedure. I direct the learned Rent Controller to record additional evidence on the question of availability or not of first and second floor of the premises bearing No. 127, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, to the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller, of course, will permit the tenant to lead such evidence in defense as he may choose on this question.
(13) I was inclined to take into consideration subsequent events mentioned in Cm 1664/87 on the basis of averments made in this application, its reply and rejoins without recording of oral evidence, but as I am remanding the case for recording additional evidence on Cm 2664/87, I deem it fit to permit the parties to lead additional evidence before the Rent Controller on the facts mentioned in Cm 1664/87 but restricted only to the proof of transfer of petitioner from Bombay to Delhi and about his date of retirement and for no other purpose. The evidence will be confined only on the points indicated above. After recording the evidence the proceedings shall be sent back to this court within a period of three months. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 3rd December, 1987.
