Judgment :- 1. The only question which is raised in this revision petition filed by the tenant is, whether the claim made by the landlady originally on the ground of personal requirement of the premises in question that she was living in a rented premises and that she required the premises in the occupation of the tenant because of the large family consisting of her two married sons each of whom has children should be rejected on the ground that subsequent to the passing of the order of eviction by the Rent Controller, the landlady has come in possession of some accommodation belonging to herself. 2. The landlady came to court with a specific case that she bona fide required the portion of the premises in the occupation of the tenant for her own occupation, as she was residing in rented premises and that she found it difficult to live in the accommodation along with her sons and their family. 3. The Rent Controller held that the landlady was living in a rented premises and the claim of the landlady was bona fide. The Rent Controller, therefore, ordered eviction. In appeal filed by the tenant, the appellate authority confirmed this finding and the order of eviction. 4. The tenant has now filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent findings given by both the authorities. 5. The only ground which is urged on behalf of the petitioner-tenant in this revision petition is that, pending the disposal of the civil revision petition, two tenants of the landlady, one Dayalan and one Adikesavan, have vacated the premises in their occupation. This premises, according to the affidavit filed by the tenant, consists of two rooms and a hall which were originally occupied by each tenant. The argument is that now that the landlady is in occupation of her own premises her claim under S.10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, cannot be canvassed and that it was open to her now to make a fresh claim against the present tenant on the ground of additional accommodation under S.10(3)(c) of the Act. 6. 6. The landlady has filed an affidavit in reply to the affidavit filed by the tenant in which she states that the portion which was in the occupation of the tenant Dayalan was only a room 8 -10, in size and that her son Krishanamurthi with his wife and two children are inconveniently occupying the same and in respect of the portion occupied by the other tenant which has been vacated she has stated is only one room 8 -10 and one small koodam 8 -10 in which her son Badri Narayanan along with his wife and children are inconveniently residing. Both the premises are according to her, insufficient and that she does not have any place to reside since in the two portions her two sons are themselves not very comfortable in the accommodation. 7. Now reference has been made by the learned counsel for the tenant to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Variety Emporium v. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina 1. In that decision the Supreme Court had observed that no authority is needed for the proposition that in appropriate cases the court must have regard to events as they present themselves as at the time when it is hearing the proceeding before it and mould the relief in the light of those events. The Supreme Court in that decision referred to the earlier decision in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad 1, and reproduced the following observations:— “When an action is brought by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement, the landlords case must not only be shown to exist at the date of the suit, but it must exist on the date of the appellate decree, or the date when a higher Court deals with the matter. During the progress and passage of proceeding from court to court, if subsequent events occur which, it noticed would non-suit the landlord, the court has to examine and evaluate those events and mould the decree accordingly. During the progress and passage of proceeding from court to court, if subsequent events occur which, it noticed would non-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.” Now, there can be no doubt that if in the course of proceedings under the Rent Control Act, a landlord comes in occupation of some accommodation, the case of the landlord has to be decided after taking into account the accommodation which has come in the possession of the landlord during the pendency of the litigation. Therefore, the fact that the two other tenants had vacated the premises in their occupation and sons of the landlady had occupied those premises is undoubtedly a circumstance which is to be taken into account for deciding the question whether the tenant is entitled to a relief in this civil revision petition. It is, however, difficult to accept the argument that, merely because the landlady has come in possession of some accommodation, the application must be rejected at this stage and the landlady must be required to file a fresh petition on the ground that she requires additional accommodation. It would not be correct to say that, merely because the landlady has secured some accommodation during the pendency of the litigation her claim which was originally determined with reference to the provisions of S.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act, must be thrown out at this stage. It is well established that a Court is entitled to apply the correct provision of law to facts which are established on the record. Provision of law mentioned in the petition does not determine either the nature of the proceeding or the nature of the relief to be granted to a party. It is the duty of the court to find out whether on facts established a party is entitled to any relief or not. Provision of law mentioned in the petition does not determine either the nature of the proceeding or the nature of the relief to be granted to a party. It is the duty of the court to find out whether on facts established a party is entitled to any relief or not. Therefore, even though originally the petition for eviction was made under S.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act on the ground that the landlady did not have any accommodation in her own possession and that she was living in the rented premises, the order of eviction cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that subsequently the landlady has come in possession of some accommodation even though that accommodation does not fully meet the need of the landlady. There is no doubt that the petition as framed when it was made was clearly maintainable because at that time the landlady was not in occupation of any premises of her own. The petition does not automatically become non-maintainable because of subsequent events. All that has to be seen is whether the accommodation which she has now secured subsequent to the order of eviction is sufficient to meet the need of the family and forcing the landlady to have recourse to another proceeding will only mean multiplicity of proceedings. The affidavit of the landlady shows that she has the sons who are married, each one of them has children and having regard to the fact that the accommodation which she has come in possession of subsequent to the filing of the petition for eviction, which does not fully meet the requirements of the landlady and her large family, the findings recorded by the Rent Control authorities have to be upheld. There is, thus no reason to interfere with the order of eviction. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.