R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Present petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Prescribed Authority dismissed the application of the landlord by judgment and order dated 1.2.1989. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 22 of the Act. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner wanted to bring the subsequent facts on the record of the case. Therefore, he filed an application for issuing a commission for ascertaining the correctness of the facts stated in the said application. The said application was dismissed by the appellate authority by its judgment and order dated 15.11.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application for amendment of pleadings whereby the amendment in the pleadings was sought and subsequent fact regarding marriage of the daughters of the landlord were sought to be brought on the record. The said application were numbered as 22Ka and 29Ka. First three applications were dismissed while application 29Ka was allowed by the appellate authority by order dated 4.3.1991. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of orders dated 15.11.1990 and 4.3.1991. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that legally the subsequent events could be brought on record and the authority below has acted illegally in rejecting aforesaid applications. It is well settled law that subsequent event can be brought on record of a case. A reference in this regard be made to the case of Variety Emporium v. R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina : AIR 1985 SC 207, wherein was ruled as under: - - When an action is brought by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement, the landlord's need must not only be shown to exist at the date of the appellate decree or the date when a higher Court passage of proceeding form Court to Court, if subsequent events occur which if noticed would not suit the landlord the Court has to examine and evaluate those events and mould the decree accordingly. The tenant is entitled to show that the need or requirement of the landlord no more exists by pointing out such subsequent events, to the Court, including the appellate Court. In such a situation it would be incorrect to say that as a decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the Court to take into consideration subsequent events. The tenant can be precluded from so contending only when a decree or order for eviction has become final. Subsequent events which are necessary to be brought on the record are in my opinion those events which may if proved ultimately effect the result of the application or appeal before the authorities below. In this case the petitioner wanted to bring on the record the following facts:
(2.) BY means of the said application, he simply wanted to got commission issued for ascertaining the correctness of the aforesaid facts. It is well settled in law that the amendment in the pleadings if necessary for the just decision of the controversy involved in the case should be allowed. In the present case, in my opinion the Court below was not right to reject the application filed by the petitioner inasmuch as by the said application, the petitioner wanted the subsequent events to be brought on the record which were involved in the case. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the orders dated 15.11.1990 and 4.3.1991 passed by the respondent No. 1 are liable to be quashed. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 14.11.1990 and 4.3.1991 are quashed.
(3.) IT is further observed that the Court below will get the building in question inspected by issuing a commission and to get the correctness of the facts stated in the said application ascertained within reasonable time and decide the appeal expeditiously preferably two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him in accordance with law. No order as to costs.;