ORDER 1. The applicants are aggrieved by order dated 26.12.2002 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur in case No. 17/90 (8) 89-90 (Dr. Uma Gupta & others Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Rao & others) whereby the Rent Controlling Authority has ordered eviction of the applicants from the demised house on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord-non-applicant No.1. 2. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that after passing of the impugned order, the landlady Smt. Uma Gupta-non-applicant No.1 has alienated the demised house and therefore, it results in completely wiping of the cause of action itself and deprives the transferee of the right to execute the order for eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. It was contended that in an order for eviction under Section 23 of the Accommodation Control Act., the cause of action is personal to the original landlord and the bona fide requirement of landlord ceased to exist on alienation of the demised premises. 3. Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the landlady non-applicant No.1 conedes that the demised house has been alienated by the non-applicant No.1 after the order for eviction of the applicant was passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. 4. The only point that requires consideration in this revision is whether view of the subsequent events, i.e. the alienation of the demised house by the landlady, the order for eviction of the tenant is liable to be set aside. 5. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram, it was observed as under: "The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they exist at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events off act or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a cautious cognizance of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief." 6. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders. It was held by the Apex Court 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 cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed." "Where during the pendency of a proceeding under Rent Control legislation by the landlord for permission to evict the tenants, a subsequent event in the facts of the case takes place which has a material bearing on the landlord's right to evict, the approach of the High Court in revision, in taking cognizance of the new development cannot be said to be wrong or illegal." 7. Section 23- E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act is as follows: "23-E. Revision by High Court, - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 31 or section 32, no appeal shall lie from any order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under this Chapter. (2) The High Court may, at any time "suo motu" or on the application of any person aggrieved, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, propriety or correctness of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the Rent Controlling Authority, call for and examine the record of the case pending before or disposed of by such Authority and "may pass such order in revision in reference thereto as it thinks fit' (emphasis supplied by me) and save as otherwise provided by this section, in disposal of any revision under this section, the High Court shall "as far as may bit' (emphasis supplied by me) exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as it does for disposal of a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as if any such proceeding of the Rent Controlling Authority is of a Court subordinate to such High Court. Provided that no powers of revision at the instance of person aggrieved shall be exercised unless an application is presented within ninety days of the date of the order sought to be revised." 8. Provided that no powers of revision at the instance of person aggrieved shall be exercised unless an application is presented within ninety days of the date of the order sought to be revised." 8. The words "may pass such order in revision in reference thereto as it thinks fit" and "as far as may be" appearing in sub-clause (2) of Section 23-E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are suggestive that in suitable cases after taking cognizance of the subsequent events into account, the Court would be justified in moulding the relief and not limit itself to the parameters of revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. Section 23-A of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act is a special provision for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of landlord. If the landlord, after the order for eviction is passed against the tenant, alienates the demised house his bona fide requirement ceases to exist disentitling the transferee from executing the decree passed against the tenant. In this view of the matter, this is a fit case in which the Court shall not confine itself to the parameters under Section 115 of the C.P.C. and would after taking into consideration the subsequent events mould the relief. In the result, this civil revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Valuable assistance rendered by Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae is acknowledged. Revision Allowed