Judgment Heard. On 6th December, 2007, the parties were put on notice that the revision would be heard and disposed of finally at admission stage. Paper book is tendered by the revision applicant, copy whereof is available with the respondents. 2. This is landlord's revision, where he succeeded in decree of eviction in RCS No.479/2002 on 25th September, 2003, failed in RCA No.263 of 2003 before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, who has considered the subsequent events to decline the relief to the landlord. 3. The parties are referred to their original status as Landlord and tenant. 4. Eviction proceedings were on the ground of bonafide need, willful default and nuisance. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, did not accept evidence of nuisance, however, he found bonafide need and default to be proved. Cross-objection was preferred to the appeal by the landlord, however, the landlord waived the challenge regarding nuisance. During the course of submissions in the present Civil Revision, the landlord has waived the challenge to the dismissal of claim for default. The controversy between the parties is, a) whether there is reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord and comparative hardship, impulse of subsequent developments, landlord having received 4 rooms at first floor in a compromise decree dated 21.11.2003 in RCS No.478/2002 from other tenant? b) whether this will disturb the entire span of scenario of the matter to tilt the balance against the landlord? 5. At the time of eviction proceedings, landlord -Laxman was 81 years old while his wife was 75 years. During pendency of the proceedings in Appellate court, the landlord expired. 6. The landlord has two rooms of 14 ft. X 8.5 ft. at northern side, while the tenant occupies identical sized rooms at the southern side at ground floor. The landlord has admittedly four married sons; grand children, total strength being of 21 members. The eldest son Nilkanth of the landlord examined in the proceedings resides at Ulhasnagar, in a one room flat. 7. The landlord in his evidence informed the learned judge that the suit premises is required for his own occupation as the available accommodation is too short to accommodate the large volume of family members and particularly whenever the children are visiting the parents. 7. The landlord in his evidence informed the learned judge that the suit premises is required for his own occupation as the available accommodation is too short to accommodate the large volume of family members and particularly whenever the children are visiting the parents. It was further proved by Laxman that he or some of the family members have, on occasions, to sleep outside the rooms while Nilkanth, the son, in his evidence stated that on visits to the parents on account of paucity of the spaces, he or other brothers have to stay/sleep outside the room. 8. The above referred evidence of the landlord and his son, is felt by the learned Additional District Judge, to be contradictory and unbelievable. This finding of the learned Judge certainly was beyond the jurisdiction of appreciation and calls for interference. Minor mistake as to who used to sleep outside the room will not deflate the purpose of bonafide need. 9. Learned Additional District Judge was influenced by the compromise decree in RCS No.478/2002. He felt that the landlord having secured the four rooms at first floor, the bonafide requirement and need is extinguished and the change in the circumstances warrants consideration. 10. Learned Additional District Judge placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Omprakash Vs. Ranbit - AIR 2002 SC 665 , wherein the Hon'ble Lordships observed as under : "...The court has power to take note of subsequent events and moult the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied :- (1) that the relief claimed originally has by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (2) that taking note of such subsequent or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; (3) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the Court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so also the opposite party is not taken by surprise." 11. The learned Additional District Judge was expected to evaluate what would be the impact of the subsequent events, which are brought on record as to reasonableness and bonafideness in the need of the landlord; whether it would be subsisting or has become extinct. Basically, the learned Judge did not dwell upon this aspect. The learned Additional District Judge was expected to evaluate what would be the impact of the subsequent events, which are brought on record as to reasonableness and bonafideness in the need of the landlord; whether it would be subsisting or has become extinct. Basically, the learned Judge did not dwell upon this aspect. He could not be speculative as he was consciously aware about the ages of the parents of Nilkanth (landlord) and whether in fact situation they would be in a position to climb first floor. Without affording any opportunity to traverse with such dissecting situation, which would be adding dis-comfort of the landlord, the learned Additional District Judge has accepted release of four rooms to be meeting the need of the landlord. The subsequent events given effect by the learned Judge, certainly calls for interference. Learned Judge did not bother to test it on rules of procedural law. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Atma S. Berar Vs. Mukhtiar Singh - AIR 2003 SC 624 , while negating such contentions, observed that, The power of the Court to take note of subsequent events is well-settled and undoubted. However, it is accompanied by three riders. Firstly, the subsequent event should be brought promptly to the notice of the Court; secondly, it should be brought to the notice of the Court consistently with rules of procedure enabling Court to take note of such events and affording the opposite party an opportunity of meeting or explaining such events; and thirdly, the subsequent event must have a material bearing on rights to relief of any party. These parameters are unfortunately lost sight by the learned First Appellate court and he has reached to an artificial creation of the development and paraded himself with the four rooms at the first floor. 13. The first appellate Court even did not consider that the tenant though claimed to be a medical practitioner, has huge agricultural property at Samner, Tq. Pachora, which is 25 kms. Away from Pachora and has a distance of one hour by State Road Transport. In his evidence, the tenant accepted that at Jalgaon premises on rentals are available. As on date of his evidence dated 4.8.2003 (or prior thereto), he did not venture to trace or locate any other premises. Pachora, which is 25 kms. Away from Pachora and has a distance of one hour by State Road Transport. In his evidence, the tenant accepted that at Jalgaon premises on rentals are available. As on date of his evidence dated 4.8.2003 (or prior thereto), he did not venture to trace or locate any other premises. His daughter Smt. Swati examined on 4.9.2003 accepts that if other premises is searched and taken charge, she will not be facing any difficulty to prosecute her studies or studies of her siblings. This evidence dated 4.9.2003 again had one months duration for the tenant to be prompt in his action to search for another premises. The tenant locked such opportunity and consequently, cannot be allowed to dictate the landlord to remain in a condensed and compressed situation of the two rooms at ground floor for the parents and also to the visiting children. It was not expected of the learned Appellate court to dictate the landlord that he should face an embracing situation when the sons or the children visit of place. Nilkanth having one room flat at Ulhasnagar itself will not mitigate landlord's need to stake claim for the premises. The streak violence showcased by the first appellate court certainly calls for interference. 14. Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel submits that the tenant will be facing a distressful situation, if evicted and he has grown up family members, whose case is a paramount aspect, needs consideration. The tenant has a settled medical practice and he will be loosing his profession. 15. The first aspect of education of the children is taken care in the evidence of Swati, wherein she accepts that search of alternate tenanted premises will not dilute the situation or will not create harassment. The later part of loosing medical practice again is discovery in the evidence, as pleading is short to answer the same. 16. Taking survey of above facts, the finding recorded by learned first Appellate court is contrary and set aside. The revision is allowed with costs, confirming the decree of eviction in RCS No.479/2002 by learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon dated 25.09.2003. 17. Heard. Mr. Pawar submits that one year's time be granted to the tenant to vacate the suit premises. Mr.Gholap, learned Counsel, has no contest on the issue. 18. The revision is allowed with costs, confirming the decree of eviction in RCS No.479/2002 by learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon dated 25.09.2003. 17. Heard. Mr. Pawar submits that one year's time be granted to the tenant to vacate the suit premises. Mr.Gholap, learned Counsel, has no contest on the issue. 18. Considering the fact situation, the tenant/respondent to vacate the suit premises on or before 31st January, 2013. The tenant shall not sublet the premises, part its occupation, shall not create any nuisance, shall pay rentals regularly and to give an undertaking to the Registrar of this Court to vacate the premises in the stipulated time with other regular terms. Such undertaking to be furnished within one month.