Full Judgment Text
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS…………………2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16734-16735 of 2008)
Transmarine Corporation & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
Zensar Technologies Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents
O R D E R
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.
1. Leave granted.
th
2. In a suit for eviction from an area of 3000 sq. ft. on the 4
floor of a building known as “Dubash House” situated at
Ballard Estate Mumbai, an application for amendment of
the written statement was filed at the instance of the
defendants/respondents. The respondents are contesting
this suit by filing a written statement and also by filing an
additional written statement. At the stage of recording
evidence in the suit, the respondents filed an application for
amendment of the written statement, which was rejected by
th
the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on 13 of January,
1
2007. A second application for amendment of the written
statement was again filed at the instance of the
th
respondents on 12 of March, 2007, which too was
th
rejected by the same Court by an order dated 28 of June,
2007. A revisional application, which was filed against the
th
order dated 28 of June, 2007 rejecting the application for
amendment for the second time, was also rejected by the
th
Revisional Court on 14 of August, 2007.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ
application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
th
for setting aside the orders dated 13 of January, 2007 and
th
14 of August, 2007 rejecting the prayer for amendment of
the written statement made at the instance of the
respondents. The High Court by the impugned order dated
th
5 of September, 2007 disposed of the writ application by
the following direction :-
“Hence, the trial Court is directed to decide the
issue which involves plaintiff’s title in accordance
with law and also on the basis of evidence other
than the admission of the petitioners.”
4. This order has been challenged by the landlord before
us by way of a Special Leave Petition, which on grant of
2
leave, has been heard in presence of the learned counsel
for the parties.
5. Having considered the nature of the suit which is
simply a suit for eviction and also repeated rejection of the
application for amendment of the written statement by the
courts below, the High Court although had not allowed the
writ petition, but at the same time, directed the trial Court to
decide the issue of title, which is not permissible in law in a
suit for eviction simplicitor. In our view, in a suit for
eviction, if it is not filed on the ground of bonafide
requirement of the landlords and since the respondents
have already admitted the relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties, there was no necessity for the
High Court to direct that the issue regarding the title of the
plaintiff in respect of the suit premises should be decided in
accordance with law and also on the evidence other than
the admission of the respondents. In view of the
discussions made hereinabove, we are, therefore, unable
to accept this part of the impugned order, particularly in
view of the fact that in a suit for eviction in which
3
relationship between the parties has been admitted, it
would not be open for the tenant to deny the title of the
landlords/appellants. In view of the above, we are,
therefore, of the view that the courts below had rightly
rejected the application for amendment of the written
statement filed by the respondents and at the same time,
the High Court was not justified in directing the trial Court to
decide the issue which involves the title of the
plaintiffs/appellants on the basis of evidence other than the
admission of the respondents. Accordingly, this part of the
order namely, “Hence, the trial Court is directed to decide
the issue which involves plaintiff’s title in accordance with
law and also on the basis of evidence other than the
admission of the petitioners”, is hereby deleted from the
impugned order of the High Court and the application for
amendment of the written statement is also rejected.
6. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit, which is simply
a suit for eviction, at an early date, preferably within six
months from the date of communication of this order to it,
without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the
4
parties. The appeals are thus allowed to the extent
indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
……………………..J.
[Tarun Chatterjee]
New Delhi; ………………………J.
September 01, 2009. [R. M. Lodha ]
5