A suit was filed in 1962 on the ground of reasonable requirement of the premises by the landlord for carrying on business. The suit was decreed. In the meantime, the landlord expired. In the second appeal preferred by the tenant, the high court allowed the prayer inter alia on the ground the bona fide requirement had ended due to the death of the landlord. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a long period elapses by the time a second appeal gets decided. If a subsequent event, like the death of the landlord in this case, is to be taken note of at every stage till the decree attains finality then there will be no end to a litigation. The parties having amended their pleadings and the lower courts having decided the matter on merits and on the basis of evidence adduced, it is permissible for the high court to examine the effect of the death of the original plaintiff. The judgment of the additional district judge decreeing the suit for eviction was restored (Shakuntala Bai vs Narayan Das).
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court held that where an affidavit has been filed by a government officer holding a key position, the government cannot plead that the officer does not reflect its views. The question arose in a case about seniority where, at a later stage, the government took the aforesaid stand with regard to a clear admission made in the affidavit (Sanjay Kumar Sinha – II vs State of Bihar).
Loss caused in transactions undertaken by alert individuals does not amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had authorised Sikkim Bank Limited to open a branch in Delhi. Owing to its poor financial condition, the bank was amalgamated with the Union Bank of India. Under the amalga- mation scheme, deposits were to be paid on pro-rata basis instead of a higher rate of interest promised earlier. The petitioners prayed for payment of principal amount and the earlier rate of interest. They contended that RBI, in spite of being aware of the Sikk- im Bank’s condition, did not warn the public. Dismissing the writ petition, the Supreme Court held that RBI has to balance public interest with that of the bank. It is not possible to order a bank closure in a small state like Sikkim which may have an adver- se impact on debtors and customers. The liability cannot be foisted on RBI (Pramod Malhotra vs Union of India).
SOLON
