JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J: The petitioner before this Court is the tenant, while the respondent is the landlord of the tenanted premises, comprising of the ground floor of the building known as Thakur Niwas at Oakwood, Shim la. The parties arc hereinafter are being referred to accordingly as tenant and landlord. 2. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant, under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Arban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the following grounds:- (a) That the tenanted premises are required bonafide by the landlord for his own use and occupation; and (b) That the tenant is guilty of such acts which amount to nuisance to other occupiers of the building The petition for eviction of the tenant was allowed by the learned Rent Controller (I), Shimla vide order dated 26.5.1994, on the ground that the tenanted premises arc bonafide required by the landlord for his own use and occupation: The ether ground of ejectment did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller. The tenant was accordingly directed to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises within sixty days from the date of order. 3. on an appeal having been carried before the learned Appellate Authority (Additional District Judi, s), Shimla, by the tenant, the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed vide the impugned order dated 23.11.1996. Consequently, the appeal of the tenant was dismissed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has come up before this Court by way of the present petition, under section 24(5) of die Act, assailing the concurrent findings of the two courts below holding that the tenanted premises are bonafide required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. 5. The learned counsel for the landlord, at the very outset, has contended that this Court may not interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, which is not wide enough to enable this Court to examine the same as an appeal. It has further been contended that reappraisal of evidence was not permissible nor concurrent findings of fact could be set aside by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 6. It has further been contended that reappraisal of evidence was not permissible nor concurrent findings of fact could be set aside by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 6. In Dev Kumar v. Smt. Swaran Lata, 1996 (1) R.C.R, 40, the Apex Court had the occasion to deal with the scope of revisional power of the High Court under section 15(5), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which provision is similar to the provision contained in section 24(5) of the Rent Act. It was held- ".......... The jurisdiction of the High Court under sub-section (5) of section 15 of the Act, therefore, would entitle the Court to examine the legality and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate Authority and thus much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it has to be exercised subject to the well known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and cannot be equated with an Appellate jurisdiction. This being the position, unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority or unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come, the High Court will not interfere with the same." Keeping the above limitations in mind, this Court has proceeded to examine the evidence in order to satisfy itself if the findings of the two courts below suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Section I4(3)(a)(i) of the Act provides: - "A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession - (a) In the case of a residential building, if — (i) He requires it for his own occupation; Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned; Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. “The landlord, in the present case, while pleading that the tenanted premises are required by him bonafide for his own use and occupation was arrived in para 18(a)(l)of his petition, as under:- "That the petitioner is employed as teacher in the Education Department of Government of Kimachal Pradesh, and will be retiring in February, l99I and will permanently settle at Shimla. At present petitioner is in occupation of two residential rooms (small size), one small glazed verandah, kitchen bath and latrine and a little space under the stairs for keeping coals. The family of petitioner consists himself, wife, widowed mother, two married sons, two wives of married sons, two grand sons, one grand daughter. One daughter of the petitioner is married at Shimla and use to visit the petitioner and stay with him for number of days. The relations of petitioners are also visiting him constantly. One son of the petitioner is employed in army and his wife and two sons are permanently residing with the petitioner at Shimla and his children are getting education at Shimla. He also use to spend his leave with the petitioner at Shimla. The other son of the petitioner is also employed but his wife is also permanently residing with the petitioner. The accommodation in occupation of petitioner is insufficient for his requirement and now it has become very difficult to accommodate the entire family in the small accommodation. Respondent is occupying ground floor of the building. The accommodation in occupation of respondent is required bonafide by the petitioner for his use and occupation and for the use and occupation of his family members." 7. The case set up by the tenant, on the other hand, is that after having retired from service, the .landlord has permanently settled at his native place in Tehsil Suni. The accommodation available with the landlord in the first floor of Thakur Nivas consists of two rooms, one glazed verandaha. kitchen, bath, latrine and a store. The two sons of the petitioner are married and are stationed outside Shimla. Neither they nor any member of their family is residing with the landlord. The only daughter of the landlord is also married and is residing with her in laws. The married daughter is visiting the landlord only at his native place and not at Shimla. The bonafide requirement of the landlord was thus denied. 8. It is settled law that the bonafide requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the making of the petition but the same must subsist till the date of the making of the final order of ejectment. The bonafide requirement of the landlord was thus denied. 8. It is settled law that the bonafide requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the making of the petition but the same must subsist till the date of the making of the final order of ejectment. If in the meantime, events have cropped up which would show that the requirement of the landlord no longer subsists, and then the action brought by the landlord for eviction of his tenant must fail. Once an appeal against the order of eviction is filed, the appeal being continuation of the original proceedings, the landlords requirement must be shown to exist even at the appellate stage. If the tenant is in a position to show that the need or requirement of the landlord no more exists due to the subsequent events, it would be open to him to point out such events and the Court has to examine and evaluate such subsequent events. Before arriving at a conclusion whether the need of the landlord exists or not. 9. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor and General Traders 1975 R.C.R.. 486, the Apex Court was dealing with the case of eviction of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1960. In the said case, while the matter of ejectment was pending before the High Court in revision, the landlord happened to acquire another building. Taking note of such subsequent event, the High Court dismissed the eviction petition filed by the landlord of the ground that the bonafide requirement of the landlord had ceased to exist. Affirming the view taken by the High Court, it was observed by the Apex Cour:- "First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis-a-vis circumstance which come into beu 5 subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is basic to oui processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the lf-jrl proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that a procedure is the hand-maid and not the mistress of the judicial process. It is basic to oui processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the lf-jrl proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that a procedure is the hand-maid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the Us has come to court and has fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice - subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances Norcan we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts to confute it to the trial Court If the litigation pends the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for applications this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the proposition 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 cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed. On both occasions the High Court, in revision, correctly took this view. The later recovery of another accommodation by the landlord during the pendency of the case has, as the High Court twice pointed out, a material bearing on right to evict, in view of the inhibition written into S.10 (3) (iii) itself. We are not disposed to disturb this approach in law or finding of fact." 10. In S.S. Bendre v. Sou. Sulabhabai Moreshwar Ghumare l99 (2) R.C.R 21, landlord had sought the ejectment of his tenant on the ground that that tenanted premises were bonafide required by him for his own use, and occupation. It was averred by the landlord that he had large number of family members and the accommodation available with him was inadequate. In S.S. Bendre v. Sou. Sulabhabai Moreshwar Ghumare l99 (2) R.C.R 21, landlord had sought the ejectment of his tenant on the ground that that tenanted premises were bonafide required by him for his own use, and occupation. It was averred by the landlord that he had large number of family members and the accommodation available with him was inadequate. An order of ejectment was passed in favour of the landlord by the trial court and the same came to be confirmed by the first appellate court. The-first appellate court, however, did not take notice of the fact that in the mean-while the number of the members of the landlords family had drastically reduced due to the marriage of his four daughters. In the writ petition, filed by the tenant, the High Court took notice of the subsequent events and set-aside the order of ejectment passed against the tenant 11. The well settled principle of law, therefore, is that the Court can take notice of the subsequent events while arriving at the conclusion whether the bonafide requirement of the landlord subsists or not. 12. In the present case, there is no denying that the accommodation available with the tenant on the ground floor of the building known as Thakur Niwas and that available with the landlord on the first floor of the said building is approximately the same, save and except that the landlord is having some additional accommodation in the form of a small store and a glazed verandah. The primary ground put forth by the landlord in support of his bonafide requirement is that he is having a large family consisting of himself, his wife, widowed mother, two married sons, their wives and three grand-children, Besides, it has been pleaded that the married daughter also keeps on visiting him and staying with him. In other words, as per the landlord the number of the family members, including himself, approximately residing in the accommodation available with him is tea. The landlord, while appearing as his own Witness has admitted that his elder son is serving in the Armed Forces, and posted outside Himachal Pradesh. He has also admitted that his second son it .also in service and posted outside Shimla. According to him, the wives and children of his two sons are residing with him. The landlord, while appearing as his own Witness has admitted that his elder son is serving in the Armed Forces, and posted outside Himachal Pradesh. He has also admitted that his second son it .also in service and posted outside Shimla. According to him, the wives and children of his two sons are residing with him. In support of his contention, the landlord has examined evidence to show that his grand-children are studying in Shimla. 13. During the pendency of the appeal, before the learned Appellate Authority, an application was made by the tenant under section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for bringing on record the subsequent events. It was averred that the entire family of the elder son of the landlord had migrated to Jhansi, where such elder son, who is serving in the Armed Forces, was posted. In reply, to the said application, it was admitted by the landlord that his son was serving in the Armed Forces and posted at Jhansi. At the time of the filing of the eviction petition, the wife of the elder son, along with her children, were residing with him at Shimla and the grand-children were residing with him at Shimla and the grand-children were studying in the School at Shimla. He has also admitted that the wife of his elder son, on having been taken ill, has been taken to Jhansi and the two grand-children have also been got admitted in a school at Jhansi. Though, it was pleaded that the wife of the elder son. and the two grand-children have migrated to Jhansi only for a temporary period for the purpose of treatment, no further material has been brought on record by the landlord in support of such contention. The mere fact that the two grand-children who were earlier studying in Shimla, have been withdrawn from, the school at Shimla and got admitted in a school at Jhansi, where the elder son of the landlord is posted, goes to show that the family of the elder son of the landlord has shifted to Jhansi permanently, where residential accommodation has been allotted to the son of the landlord serving in the Army. 14. It is also an admitted fact that the second son of the landlord is serving outside Shimla. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that even the second son is not residing permanently with the landlord. 14. It is also an admitted fact that the second son of the landlord is serving outside Shimla. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that even the second son is not residing permanently with the landlord. This second son of the landlord has not been examined, in the present case, to show that his family was not staying with him at the place of his posting and that his family is staying with the landlord at Shimla Even if it be assumed mat the family of the second son, consisting of his wife and one child is staying with the landlord at Shimla, with the migration of the family of the elder son to Jhansi, the number of the family members of the landlord has been reduced to a considerable extent and it cannot be said that the accommodation available with the landlord is not sufficient for his own use and for the use of the family members residing with him. The learned Appellate Authority has failed to take note of the subsequent events, while maintaining the order of ejectment passed against the tenant In view of the considerable reduction in the number of the members of the family belonging to the landlord, I am satisfied that the need of the landlord did not exist as on the date, the Older of ejectment came to be affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority. 15. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the order of ejectment passed against the tenant by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority is set aside and the eviction petition filed by the landlord is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. -