Merits Of Proposed Plea Irrelevant At Amendment Stage; Legal Heirs Can Continue Bonafide Need Claim After Landlord’s Death: Supreme Court
The Bench noted that High Court cannot use Article 227 jurisdiction to reassess merits while interfering with discretionary orders allowing amendment of pleadings.
The Supreme Court held that courts deciding amendment applications cannot test the merits of the proposed plea, as its correctness is for trial. It further held that a landlord’s death does not automatically extinguish an eviction claim based on bona fide need, and legal heirs may rely on amendment to bring subsequent events on record.
The Court further held that in exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction, the High Court cannot reassess merits or interfere with discretionary orders allowing amendment as if sitting in appeal. It reiterated that courts may consider subsequent events affecting relief, subject to fairness to both sides.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowing an appeal against a Bombay High Court decision that had set aside an order permitting amendment of a plaint in an eviction dispute, observed, “Coming to the reasoning adopted by the High Court that on the death of the original landlord, his bonafide need would come to an end and that his/her legal heir would not be able to seek eviction on the basis of their bonafide need, suffice it to observe that this proposition cannot have a blanket application. The same would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case… we do not find that the Appellate Bench committed an error when it exercised its jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code and referred the issue of bonafide requirement”.
Senior Advocate Aniruddha Joshi appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Ravindra Kumar Raizada appeared for the respondent.
The original landlord had instituted a suit seeking eviction on several grounds, including bona fide requirement for himself and his family members. The trial court dismissed the suit. During pendency of the landlord’s appeal, he died, whereupon his legal heirs sought amendment of the plaint to plead their continuing need for the tenanted premises, including professional use by the landlord’s daughter-in-law and proposed medical practice by his grandson.
The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court allowed the amendment, holding it necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, while granting the tenants liberty to amend their written statement and lead evidence. It also referred the issue of bona fide requirement to the trial court under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC.
The High Court, however, interfered under Article 227 and held that the amendment introduced a new and inconsistent case and that the legal heirs ought to institute a fresh eviction proceeding.
Setting aside that view, the Supreme Court held the High Court had impermissibly examined the merits of the amendment and proceeded on a factually incorrect premise that the original plaint contained only the landlord’s personal need.
“…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 Bench noted.
The Court found the original pleadings expressly referred to the requirement of the landlord and his family members, and held that whether evidence ultimately supports that plea is distinct from whether amendment should be permitted. It further ruled that the appellate court had validly exercised jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC in directing determination of issues essential to a just decision on merits.
“…exercise of power by the Appellate Bench under provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19086 was uncalled for. While it is true that the Trial Court did not omit to frame or try the issue with regard to bonafide requirement of the landlord, the Appellate Court could always exercise power under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code and frame an issue so as to “determine any question of fact which appears to the Appellate Court essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits.” Such power can be exercised by the Appellate Court if it appears to it essential to the right decision of the suit on merits”, the Bench noted.
Restoring the appellate order dated April 5, 2024, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings. It clarified that it had not examined the merits of the parties’ rival claims, which would be decided independently in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh v. Natwarlal Shamji Gada & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 416)
Appearances:
Appellant: Aniruddha Joshi, Senior Advocate, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR, Anoop Raj, Advocate.
Respondent: Ravindra Kumar Raizada, Senior Advocate, Leena Jayesh Shah, AOR.