TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of ejectment being defective. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 11th June, 1998, answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and directed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears to be decreed first and second appeals preferred by the defendant-appellant have been dismissed. This is an appeal filed by special leave. 2. It has been common case at the Bar that the suit premises are situated in the State of Haryana where the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are not applicable and the rights and obligations of the parties are to be worked out and governed under common law of the land. At the time of hearing it was conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that no fault can be found with the decree of the Trial Court as confirmed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there has been a subsequent event having a material bearing on the judgment under appeal and the right of the respondent to decree. Such subsequent event is now the core of controversy, the relevant facts relating to which are stated in the succeeding paragraphs. 3. It appears that the suit premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a notice dated 7.4.1999 from the Estate Officer, HUDA asking him to vacate the suit premises. On 19.5.1999 the appellant has submitted an application to HUDA requesting them to allot the suit premises to the appellant on the same terms and conditions or any other terms and conditions as may be thought fit by HUDA. It was submitted that in these circumstances, as the plaintiff-respondent has ceased to the owner of the suit premises, he was not entitle to execute the decree for eviction and the same was liable to be set aside. 5. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent brought to the notice of this court an order dated 22.6.2000 passed by Chief Administrator, HUDA, an Appellate Authority over the Estate Officer, HUDA whereby an appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and the respondent has been allowed an extension of time for payment of the arrears of installments to HUDA. 6. The relevant facts emerging from a perusal of the documents placed on record by the parties insofar as they relate to the proceedings before HUDA may briefly be noticed. 7. On 12.2.1999 the Estate Officer, HUDA passed an order recalling the allotment of the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... title paramount has on the party who sets up such defence. In a recent decision by us in Vashu Dev v. Bal Kishan [2002]1SCR171 we have held: To constitute eviction by title paramount so as to discharge the obligation of the tenant to put his lessor into possession of the leased premises, three conditions must be satisfied; (i) the party evicting must have a good and present title to the property; (ii) the tenant must have quitted or directly attorned to the paramount title holder against his will; (iii) either the landlord must be willing or be a consenting party to such direct attornment by his tenant to the paramount title holder or there must be an event, such as a change in law or passing of decree by a competent court, which would dispense with the need of consent or willingness on the part of the landlord and so bind him as would enable the tenant handing over possession or attorning in favour of the paramount title holder directly; or, in other words, the paramount title holder must be armed with such legal process for eviction as cannot be lawfully resisted. The burden of raising such a plea and substantiating the same, as to make out a clear case of eviction by paramou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tenant-respondent so as to hold the appellant liable to be evicted against his will. 10. For two reasons we do not think that the defendant-appellant is entitled to any relief and for setting aside of the decree for eviction. Firstly, there is neither any order or resumption and forfeiture within the meaning of Section 17 of the Act passed by HUDA against the respondent nor is there an allotment by HUDA directly in favour of the appellant. In view of the order of the Estate Officer having been set aside by the Appellate Authority under the Act the allotment made by HUDA in favour of the respondent continues to subsist. His title, under which he had inducted the appellant in possession of the suit premises, has not come to an end. The triple test, laid down by this court in Vashu Deo's case is not satisfied. Secondly, the appellant is placing reliance on an event happening after the institution of suit, i.e. a subsequent event and a case for taking notice of such subsequent event by court so as to impair the judgment under appeal is not made out. 11. The ordinary rule of civil is that the rights of the parties stand crystalised on the date of the institution of the sui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not beyond pale of controversy either as to their existence or in their impact, is expected to have resort to amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. Such subsequent event the Court may permit being introduced into the pleadings by way of amendment as it would be necessary to do so for the purpose of determining real questions in controversy between the parties. In Trojan Co. v. R.M.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar - [1953]4SCR789 this Court has held that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found; without the amendment of the pleading the Court would not be entitled to modify or alter the relief. In Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho and Ors. - (1898) 25 IndApp 195 (PC), their Lordships observed that, as a rule, relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. 13. Power of the Court to take note of subsequent events, specially at the appellate stage, came up for consideration of a Full Bench of Nagpur High Court presided over by Justice Sinha (as His Lordship then was) in Chhote Khan v. Mohammad Obedalla Khan, AIR 1953 Nag 361. Hidayatullah, J. (as His Lordship then wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
