Landlord's Legal Heirs Can Amend Eviction Suit To Add Bona Fide Need : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that where a landlord, who filed an eviction suit on the ground of bona fide requirement for himself and his family, passes away, his legal heirs may amend the pleadings to incorporate additional grounds of bona fide need, provided such amendments do not conflict with or alter the original basis of the suit.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal filed by the legal heirs of the landlord (wife and children), who were aggrieved by the Bombay High Court's decision to deny them an opportunity to amend the plaint to include their additional bona fide needs in congruence with the bonafide mentioned originally by the landlord.

In an original suit for eviction, the landlord sought eviction of the Respondent-tenant on the ground of bona fide need for himself and family members. The trial court dismissed the suit after noting that the landlord failed to put forth the business idea to be executed on the suit premises if vacated.

During an appeal against the trial court's decision, the landlord passed away, prompting the Appellant to be brought on record, who sought leave to amend the suit to include additional bona fide grounds to strengthen their ground for eviction. The Appellant said that they were in bona fide need of the suit premises for opening an Advocate Chamber for his mother, as well as to build a clinic for himself to start a medical practice.

The Appellate Court allowed the plea seeking amendment to the plaint, noting that the Appellants made no adverse plea.

Aggrieved by the Appellate Court's decision, the Respondent-tenant invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that allowing the amendment as sought by the legal heirs would, therefore, amount to introducing a totally new case that was inconsistent with what was pleaded by the original landlord. The tenant argued that with the death of the original landlord, his need had eclipsed, which cannot be claimed by his legal heirs by incorporating new bona fide needs.

The High Court's decision to interfere with the Appellate Court's decision prompted the landlord's legal heir to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The issue before the Court was whether the amendment of the plaint sought by the legal heirs of the landlord be refused on the ground that after the death of the landlord, the claim for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide need no longer survives.

Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar answered the issue in the negative and held that an amendment to an eviction suit sought by the landlord's legal heirs cannot be refused after his death, where subsequent developments giving rise to additional grounds of bona fide need have a material bearing on the parties' entitlement to relief.

“No doubt, the principle that the rights of the parties have to be adjudicated keeping in mind the rights existing at the commencement of the lis. Where however subsequent events having a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief occur, the Court is not precluded from taking cognizance of the same and moulding the relief in accordance with law.”, the Court observed, pointing that since the eviction suit was founded on the bona fide requirement of the landlord and his family, a fact not rebutted by the tenant, the appellant's additional grounds of bona fide need cannot be disregarded merely because they were not part of the original pleadings and were introduced later in light of subsequent developments. (See Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders, 1975 INSC 75)

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the order passed by the Appellate Court to allow the appellant's plea to amend the suit was restored.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of Plaint — Bonafide Need of Landlord — Death of Landlord during Appeal — Power of Court to examine merits at the stage of amendment — Held: Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial - While determining the permissibility of an amendment, the Court cannot go into the merits/demerits of the case - The factual truth of the subsequent pleadings is a matter to be considered on the merits of the claim and not at the stage of amendment. [Paras 15-18]

Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court — Interference with discretionary order of amendment — Held: In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal - It is not open to the High Court to review or reassess the evidence or material upon which the inferior court or tribunal passed the order - The supervisory jurisdiction is strictly confined to seeing whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction - The High Court transgresses its limitations if it enters upon the merits of the case set up in the amendment. [Paras 15, 16]

Rent Control and Eviction — Bonafide Requirement — Subsequent Events — Death of Landlord — Held: The proposition that on the death of the original landlord, the bonafide need comes to an end and the legal heirs cannot seek eviction on the basis of their need, cannot have a blanket application - It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. While rights are generally adjudicated as they existed at the commencement of the lis, courts are not precluded from taking cautious cognisance of subsequent developments to mould relief in accordance with law and current realities. [Para 17]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XLI Rule 25 — Power of Appellate Court to frame issues and refer them for trial — Held: Even if the Trial Court did not omit to frame or try the issue originally, the Appellate Court can always exercise power under Order XLI Rule 25 to frame an issue to determine any question of fact which appears essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits based on subsequent events (such as the amendment of the plaint). [Relied on Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia, 2017 INSC 1240; Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Company, (2003) 3 SCC 524; Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders, 1975 INSC 75; Para 18]

Cause Title: VINAY RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH VERSUS NATWARLAL SHAMJI GADA  AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR Mr. Sharian Mukherji, Adv. Mr. Anoop Raj, Adv. Mr. Chirag Zanwar, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ravindra Kumar Raizada, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jikesh Shah, Adv. Mr. Dipen Furia, Adv. Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Ms. Leena Jayesh Shah, AOR Mr. J. Prasad, Adv.

Related - Landlord's Bona Fide Need To Be Assessed As On Date Of Eviction Petition Unless Subsequent Events Cause Material Change : Supreme Court