Sudhir Agarwal, J.;— 1. Heard Sri S.K. Shukla, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri V. Sandilya, Advocate, for respondents. 2. This is tenant's writ petition. Petitioner, Lokendra Kumar Soni, is a tenant in shop No. 187/5 (New No. 458) situated in Mohalla Azadganj, Sipri Bazar, District Juhani (hereinafter referred to as "disputed shop"). It is owned by respondent no. 2, Sitaram Bijpuriya. Petitioner-tenant is a Gold smith and doing business of jewelery in the aforesaid shop. Respondent no. 2 instituted proceedings for eviction of petitioner-tenant from shop in dispute filing Small Cause Suit No. 40 of 1989 which ended in a compromise decree dated 23.9.1991, after petitioner-tenant agreed to enhance rent from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 325/- per month with effect from 15.4.1991, besides water tax. Thereafter in 1997, respondent no. 2 instituted proceedings under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") seeking release of shop in question on the ground that landlord's son having attained majority, he and his son want to commence their own business, and, therefore, shop should be released in favour of landlord. Petitioner contested this application. Prescribed Authority/II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate decided P.A. Case No. 21 of 1997 vide judgment dated 16.7.1999 held that neither respondent no. 2 could show his alleged personal need to be genuine and bona fide nor question of hardship lies in his favour and, accordingly, landlord's application was rejected. Aggrieved thereto respondent no. 2-landlord preferred Rent Appeal No. 28 of 1999 which has been allowed by District Judge, Jhansi vide impugned judgment dated 31.3.2003. 3. Appellate Court reversed findings of Trial Court on both the issues and, accordingly, setting aside Prescribed Authority's order dated 16.7.1999 has allowed Release Application of respondent no. 2 and directed petitioner-tenant to vacate shop in question and hand over vacant possession to the landlord. 4. During pendency of this writ petition, it appears that several other accommodations/shops, including one adjoining to the shop in dispute, fell vacant but they were let out to other tenants. Petitioner-tenant, accordingly, filed a supplementary affidavit, sworn on 8.2.2011, stating following averments in para 6 to 12: "6. That during the pendency of the writ petition the several shop belonging to the respondent no. Petitioner-tenant, accordingly, filed a supplementary affidavit, sworn on 8.2.2011, stating following averments in para 6 to 12: "6. That during the pendency of the writ petition the several shop belonging to the respondent no. 2 which are situated adjoining to the shop of the petitioner as well as over the Ist floor of disputed shop have vacant and landlord respondent no. 2 is sitting in one shop and doing business of matching centre selling thread and other stretching material in the shop as such need of landlord have became satisfied. 7. That the respondent no. 2 started business since 28.6.2006. The photocopy of invitation card which was sent by the respondent no. 2 on the occasion of Inauguration to the petitioner is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 to this affidavit. 8. That an other shop which was in tenancy of Samsang tailor at the time of filing of writ petition has now fallen vacant in November 2008 and the same has been let out by the landlord to the proprietor of Red Rose tailor. The photographs of the spot showing existence of Red Rose tailor is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-2 to this affidavit. 9. That earlier one shop which was let out to Pooja garment has also fallen vacant on 12.6.2009 and thereafter it has been let out to Ashok Gurbakhasani who is proprietor of Hari Ram Readymade garments who was already doing business in one shop adjoining Pooja garments as such now since 2009 one shop which was situated adjoining the shop of the petitioner in the name of Pooja garments has been let out to Hari Ram Readymade. The copy of photographs showing the situation of shop in the name of Hari Ram Readymade is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-3 to this affidavit. 10. That earlier two shops in which business were doing in the name of Laxmi Provision shop and Taj Commercial Institute has now been vacant in January 2006 and 26.12.2006 which has now been let out to the proprietor of Raj shoot collection in May 2008. The copy of invitation letter which was sent by the proprietor of Raj shoot collection at the time of inauguration alongwith photographs are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-4 to this affidavit. 11. The copy of invitation letter which was sent by the proprietor of Raj shoot collection at the time of inauguration alongwith photographs are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-4 to this affidavit. 11. That one shop which was in the name of Sadhuram Ranglani was already vacated by Sri Sadhuram Ranglani on 26.12.2006. The affidavit of Sri Sadhuram Ranglani is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-5 to this affidavit. 12. That it is pertinent to mention here that Sri Sadhuram Ranglani has vacated the shop in which respondent no. 2 is doing business. Copy of affidavit alongwith copy of receipt and inauguration card are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-6 to this affidavit." 5. Copy of aforesaid affidavit was served on Counsel for respondent no. 2 on 9.2.2011 but no affidavit in rebuttal thereof was filed by respondent no. 2. When this matter came up for hearing before this Court on 8.8.2012, this Court after hearing for quite sometime found that subsequent events in the present case were liable to be taken into consideration and since the events, as disclosed in the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, would have material bearing on the issue in question, the landlord must be given one opportunity to place his stand before this Court, and, accordingly, passed the following: "A supplementary affidavit after serving it on counsel for respondent on 9th February, 2011 has been filed wherein it has been shown that during pendency of this writ petition a number of shops owned by landlord-respondent fell vacant which satisfy his requirement but instead of starting business therein, which is the ground for seeking release of shop in question, he has let out all those shops. It appears that no reply has been filed by respondent-landlord to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit. Ten days and no more time is allowed to the respondent to file supplementary counter affidavit, if any, to the supplementary affidavit dated 8th February, 2011. List immediately thereafter." 6. No supplementary counter affidavit, as directed above, was filed when this matter came up on 27.8.2012. In order to give one more opportunity, the matter was deferred by ordering it to be listed in the next cause list. Still, no supplementary counter affidavit, as directed, in reply to the supplementary affidavit sworn on 8.2.2011 by petitioner, has been filed by respondent no. 2. In order to give one more opportunity, the matter was deferred by ordering it to be listed in the next cause list. Still, no supplementary counter affidavit, as directed, in reply to the supplementary affidavit sworn on 8.2.2011 by petitioner, has been filed by respondent no. 2. It is in these circumstances, this Court has no option but to proceed by treating the averments contained in the supplementary affidavit as unrebutted and correct. 7. It cannot not be disputed that such subsequent events, which may have material bearing on the issue to be considered in the matter like the present one, can/must be taken into consideration. It would be useful to remind, by having a glance over some of the authorities, on this issue. 8. The question as to why and in what circumstances, subsequent activities/events can be looked into, has been considered time and again by Apex Court as well as this Court also. 9. A three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. Motor and General Traders 1975 (1) SCC 770 permitted cognizance of subsequent events, though very cautiously, and said: "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 subsequent cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceedings provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed." 10. Again in Hasmat Rai Vs. Raghunath Prasad 1981 (3) SCC 103 , the cognizance of subsequent events was held permissible provided it wholly satisfy the requirement of petitioner/landlord who petitioned for eviction on the ground of personal requirement. The Court said: "Therefore, it is now incontrovertible that where possession is sought for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but must subsist till the final decree or an order for eviction is made. If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that the landlords requirement is wholly satisfied then in that case his action must fail and in such a situation it is incorrect to say that as decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the court to take into consideration subsequent events." 11. If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that the landlords requirement is wholly satisfied then in that case his action must fail and in such a situation it is incorrect to say that as decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the court to take into consideration subsequent events." 11. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 623 Apex Court said that normal rule is that rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined as they were when the lis commenced. The only exception is that the Court is not precluded from moulding reliefs appropriately in consideration of subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and obligations. Hon'ble M.N. Venkatachalia, J (as his Lordship then was) observed: "The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact 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." 12. This matter was further examined in detail in Kedar Nath Agrawal and another Vs. Dhanraji Devi and another 2004 (4) AWC 3709 (SC) and having considered a number of authorities on the subject, the Apex Court, in para 16 of judgment, crystallized three aspects when subsequent events can be taken note by a Court of law, namely: (i) The relief claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent change of circumstances, become inappropriate; or (ii) It is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten litigation; or (iii) It is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice between the parties. 13. Now looking to the facts of the present case, in the light of aforesaid exposition of law, this Court finds that several shops became available to respondent no. 2 in June 2009, January 2006, December 2006 etc. and the same have been let out either to new tenants or other tenants or are lying vacant. 13. Now looking to the facts of the present case, in the light of aforesaid exposition of law, this Court finds that several shops became available to respondent no. 2 in June 2009, January 2006, December 2006 etc. and the same have been let out either to new tenants or other tenants or are lying vacant. Therefore, ex facie this Court has no manner of doubt that the claim set up by respondent no. 2 that the shop in question is needed for settling business by him and his son who has now become major is nothing but a surreptitious attempt to get accommodation in question vacant on flimsy, imaginary and unsubstantial grounds. In view thereof, impugned appellate judgment cannot sustain. 14. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned appellate judgment and order dated 31.3.2003 (Annexure 11 to writ petition) is hereby set aside and the judgment and order dated 16.7.1999 of Prescribed Authority is hereby restored and confirmed. 15. No costs. _____________