PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU versus THE MOTOR & GENERAL TRADERS

PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU versus THE MOTOR & GENERAL TRADERS

Courts are empowered and, in proper cases, obliged to consider subsequent developments, even those occurring after institution of a proceeding, in order to mould the relief so that it accords with the real and current situation, provided procedural fairness is preserved. Here, the landlord's acquisition of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu; Respondent: The Motor & General Traders
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 March 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) / Supreme Court (appeal From High Court Order in Revision)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Landlord Tenant Disputes, Civil Appeals, Subsequent Events Moulding Relief, Revisional Power
Land Law Tenancy Law Civil Procedure Eviction Landlord Tenant Disputes Civil Appeals Subsequent Events Moulding Relief Revisional Power

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu

Appellant

The Motor & General Traders

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) / Supreme Court (appeal From High Court Order in Revision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court can take into account subsequent facts after institution of proceedings in appeal or revision and mould relief accordingly
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the entire eviction petition based on a subsequent development during litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Courts are empowered and, in proper cases, obliged to consider subsequent developments, even those occurring after institution of a proceeding, in order to mould the relief so that it accords with the real and current situation, provided procedural fairness is preserved. Here, the landlord's acquisition of alternative accommodation during pendency rendered him legally disabled from seeking eviction under Section 10(3)(iii), and this finding cannot be reopened.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Revision before the High Court stands dismissed.
  • Rent Controller to consider the subsequent development disabling landlord from seeking eviction; that finding cannot be reopened.