Adjudication Of Landlord's Bona Fide Need Should Be Done On Date Of Filing Of Eviction Suit Unless Subsequent Event Changes Ground Of Relief: Supreme Court Reiterates
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging an order dismissing the writ petition filed against the reversal of the decree for eviction.
While dealing with a landlord-tenant dispute, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the adjudication of bona fide need of landlord should be done considering the date when the suit for eviction was filed, unless some subsequent event materially changes the ground of relief.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the order passed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the reversal of the decree for eviction by the first Appellate Court.
The Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held, “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 Gadewar. 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.”
“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 added.
Factual Background
The appellant is one of the legal heirs of the landlord. According to the legal heirs, one Diego Zuzarte, the predecessor of the respondents, was treated as his sub-tenant. In the year 1994, a suit for eviction came to be filed under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 by the legal heirs of the landlord. The eviction of the sub-tenant was sought on the ground of bona fide need of the family of the principal tenant. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs had proved their bona fide need in respect of Room 59, which was occupied by the defendants, as the said premises were required for the privacy of the widow of the landlord, who was an old lady aged 87 years and six daughters used to visit her place. 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, who was the widow of Martins, had expired and, therefore, the bona fide need of the plaintiffs did not survive. Accordingly, the decree for eviction was set aside, and the suit for eviction was dismissed. The original plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the reversal of the decree for eviction, approached the High Court, but the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, one of the original plaintiffs filed the present appeal.
Reasoning
The Bench was of the view that all the relevant material that was brought on record by both the parties ought to have been examined while deciding the writ petition. As per the Bench, the affidavit in reply could have been considered as additional material in opposing the claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide need. “Dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of non-traverse has, in our view, vitiated the impugned judgment”, it added.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that it was the specific case of the plaintiffs that they had bona fide need of the room occupied by the defendants, as the same was required by the family for their own use and occupation. “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”, it added.
Thus, the Bench reiterated that while dealing with a landlord-tenant dispute, the adjudication of bona fide 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. The Bench also held that the High Court failed to consider whether the subsequent event, as urged by the defendants, had a 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”, it held.
Thus, setting aside the impugned order, the Bench remanded the proceedings to the Small Causes Court, Mumbai.
Cause Title: Maria Martins v. Noel Zuzarte and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 376)