Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the documentary material on record, we are of the view
that the writ petition did not warrant dismissal solely on the
ground that the original plaintiffs failed to file any rejoinder to the defendants’ affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023. In our view, all relevant material that was brought on record by both the parties ought to have been examined while deciding the writ petition. The affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023 could have been considered as additional material in opposing the claim for eviction on theground of bonafide need. Dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of non-traverse has, in our view, vitiated the impugned judgment. {Para 6}.
18. In the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava [(2001)
2 SCC 604], this Court held that the landlord should not be
penalised for the slowness of the legal system and the crucial
date for deciding the facts of the requirement of the landlord is
the date of his application for eviction. It is also observed that
the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying
the landlord relief unless the litigation at least reaches the final
stages. However, it is further added that subsequent events
may, in some situations, be considered to have overshadowed
the genuineness of the landlords’ needs but only if they are of
such nature and dimension as to completely eclipse such need
and make it lose the significance altogether.”
In the light of above discussion, the High Court failed to consider whether the subsequent event as urged by the defendants had material bearing on the right claimed by the plaintiffs. It has to be borne in mind that the Trial Court had passed a decree for eviction on the basis of the evidence on record which was reversed by the Appellate Court. It was, therefore, necessary for the High Court to have taken into consideration the entire material available on record including the affidavit dated 12th April 2023. Thus, by failing to do so, the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it while deciding the challenge to the reversal of the decree for eviction. We, therefore, find that the order passed by the High Court deserves interference.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
MARIA MARTINS Vs NOEL ZUZARTE AND OTHERS
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 04th February
2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court1
in Writ Petition No.1458 of 2003. By the said order, the writ
petition preferred by the appellant challenging the reversal of the
decree for eviction by the first Appellate Court came to be
dismissed.
3. The appellant is one of the legal heirs of Mr. Francis Paul
Martins. According to the legal heirs of Mr. Martins, he was a
1 For short, “the High Court”
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.11349 of 2025 Page 2 of 9
monthly tenant of Room Nos.59 and 63 situated at Iqbal Manzil,
Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai-400 012. Room No.59 had
been let out to Mr. Diego Zuzarte, the predecessor of the
respondents. He was paying rent to Mr. Martins and was treated
as his sub-tenant. On 5th December, 1994, suit for eviction came
to be filed under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 19472 by the legal heirs of Mr.
Martins. The eviction of the sub-tenant was sought on the ground
of bonafide need of the family of the principal tenant. It was
specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs required the suit premises
for their bonafide need so as to occupy the same. In the written
statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the case as pleaded
was denied.
4. Before the Trial Court, the parties led evidence. By judgment
dated 18th July 2001, the learned Judge of the Trial Court recorded
a finding that the plaintiffs had proved their bonafide need in
respect of Room No.59 that was occupied by the defendants as the
said premises was required for privacy of the widow of Mr. Martins,
who was an old lady having 87 years of age and there were six
2 For short, the Act
daughters who used to visit her place. It was further held that
greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if the decree for
eviction was not passed. The suit was, accordingly, decreed.
The defendants being aggrieved by the decree of eviction
challenged the same by filing an appeal. The Appellate Court
reversed the said decree on the reasoning that the plaintiff No.1,
who was the widow of Mr. Martins had expired and, therefore, the
bonafide need of the plaintiffs did not survive. Accordingly, the
decree for eviction was set aside and the suit for eviction was
dismissed.
5. The original plaintiffs being aggrieved by the reversal of the
decree for eviction approached the High Court and challenged the
aforesaid judgment in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. During pendency of the writ petition, the
original defendants placed on record an affidavit in reply dated 12th
April 2023, wherein it was stated that Room No.63 that was in
occupation of the original plaintiffs was not being utilised by them
and that the said room was occupied by some other persons. When
the writ petition was taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the
original plaintiffs had not filed any rejoinder to the defendants’
affidavit. The High Court, thus, held that the plaintiffs had let out
Room No.63 despite the same being available to them which
indicated that they did not bonafide require the suit premises.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved, one
of the original plaintiffs has filed the present appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the documentary material on record, we are of the view
that the writ petition did not warrant dismissal solely on the
ground that the original plaintiffs failed to file any rejoinder to the defendants’ affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023. In our view, all relevant material that was brought on record by both the parties ought to have been examined while deciding the writ petition. The affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023 could have been considered as additional material in opposing the claim for eviction on theground of bonafide need. Dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of non-traverse has, in our view, vitiated the impugned judgment.
7. Suffice it to observe that it was the specific case of the
plaintiffs that they had bonafide need of Room No.59 occupied by
the defendants as the same was required by the family for their
own use and occupation. By leading evidence before the Trial
Court, the plaintiffs were successful in securing the decree for
eviction. The Appellate Court reversed the said decree principally
on the ground that the suit premises was primarily required for
the widow of Mr. Martins, who was alive when the suit was filed
but had subsequently expired. This adjudication was the subject
matter of challenge at the instance of plaintiffs before the High
Court. The defendants sought to support the reversal of the decree
for eviction by stating in their affidavit dated 12th April 2023 that
Room No.63 that was in occupation of the plaintiffs had been let
out to some other persons. This factor was required to be taken
into consideration along with all other evidence that was available
on record while considering the challenge to the decree of the
Appellate Court. The affidavit by itself could not have been the sole
basis for coming to a conclusion that the plaintiffs did not bonafide
need the suit premises, without examining the material on record.
In this regard, we may refer to the decision in Atma S. Berar Vs.
Mukhtiar Singh 2002 INSC 533 wherein it was held as under:
“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 right to relief of any party.”
8. In this context, we are also guided by the principle laid down
by this Court in Maganlal son of Kishanlal Godha Vs.
Nanasaheb son of Udhaorao Gadewar4. While dealing with a
landlord-tenant dispute, it was held that the adjudication of
bonafide need should be done as on the date when the suit for
eviction was filed, unless some subsequent event materially
changes the ground of relief. It was further held that subsequent
events may be considered to have overshadowed the genuineness
of the landlord’s requirement only if they are of such nature and
dimension as to make it lose its significance altogether. This Court
observed as under:
“17. In Pratap Rai Tanwani v. Uttam Chand [(2004) 8 SCC
490], it was held that the bona fide requirement of the landlord
has to be seen on the date of the petition and the subsequent
events intervening due to protracted litigation will not be
relevant. It was held that the crucial date is the date of petition;
therefore, the normal rule is that the rights and obligations of
the parties are to be determined on the date of petition and that
subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding
the reliefs, provided such events had a material impact on those
rights and obligations. It was further observed that it is stark
reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would
be the number of developments sprouting up during the long
interregnum. Therefore, the courts have to take a very
pragmatic approach of the matter. It is common experience in
4 CA No.6125/2008 decided on 16.10.2008
our country that especially landlord-tenant litigations prolong
for a long time. It is true that neither can the person who has
started the litigation sit idle nor can the development of the
event be stopped by him. Therefore, the crucial event should be
taken as on the date when the suit for eviction was filed, unless
the subsequent events materially change the ground of relief.
18. In the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava [(2001)
2 SCC 604], this Court held that the landlord should not be
penalised for the slowness of the legal system and the crucial
date for deciding the facts of the requirement of the landlord is
the date of his application for eviction. It is also observed that
the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying
the landlord relief unless the litigation at least reaches the final
stages. However, it is further added that subsequent events
may, in some situations, be considered to have overshadowed
the genuineness of the landlords’ needs but only if they are of
such nature and dimension as to completely eclipse such need
and make it lose the significance altogether.”
In the light of above discussion, the High Court failed to consider whether the subsequent event as urged by the defendants had material bearing on the right claimed by the plaintiffs. It has to be borne in mind that the Trial Court had passed a decree for eviction on the basis of the evidence on record which was reversed by the Appellate Court. It was, therefore, necessary for the High Court to have taken into consideration the entire material available on record including the affidavit dated 12th April 2023. Thus, by failing to do so, the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it while deciding the challenge to the reversal of the decree for eviction. We, therefore, find that the order passed by the High Court deserves interference.
9. The contention of the appellant that the contents of the
affidavit did not warrant acceptance is an aspect that requires
consideration. Since we are inclined to remand the proceedings to
the Trial Court for re-consideration of the matter in the light of
subsequent events, we do not intend to delve at length on this
aspect or as regards the material placed on record by either party,
since any observations made could prejudice the Courts. In our
view, the interests of justice would be served if the proceedings are
re-considered by the Trial Court in the light of material brought on
record and the subsequent events that have since occurred during
pendency of the proceedings. To enable the parties to buttress
their respective stands, they are granted liberty to amend their
pleadings in accordance with law. The Trial Court would thereafter
consider the entire material on record and decide the proceedings
on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made either
by the Trial Court or by the Appellate Court.
10. Accordingly, it is held as under:
(a) The order dated 4th February 2025 passed in Writ Petition
No.1458 of 2003 is set aside.
(b) The proceedings in R.A.E. Suit No.70 of 1995 are remanded to
the Small Causes Court, Mumbai for being decided afresh in
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.11349 of 2025 Page 9 of 9
accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to amend their
pleadings and thereafter lead further evidence in accordance with
law.
(c) Since the plaintiffs seek eviction on the ground of their bonafide
need, the Trial Court shall endeavor to decide the suit within a
period of one year from the date the parties appear before it,
subject to co-operation by the parties.
(d) The parties shall appear before the Small Causes Court,
Mumbai on 22nd April 2026.
It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case and all issues are kept open for consideration by
the Trial Court in accordance with law.
11. The Civil Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
……..………………………..J.
[ J.K.MAHESHWARI ]
.…..……..…………………..J.
[ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ]
NEW DELHI,
APRIL 16, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment