Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 416
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) NO.8991 OF 2025)
VINAY RAGHUNATH DESHMUKH APPELLANT
VERSUS
NATWARLAL SHAMJI GADA RESPONDENTS
AND ANOTHER
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. I.A. No.102914 of 2025 is allowed. Names of respondent
Nos.3 and 4 are deleted from the array of parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The question that arises for consideration in this civil
appeal is whether the Court can examine the merits/demerits
of the case while considering the prayer for grant of leave to
amend the plaint. Consequentially, can the amendment of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SACHIN KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2026.04.24
17:17:32 IST
Reason:
plaint sought by the legal heirs of the landlord be refused on
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 1 of 16
the ground that after the death of the landlord, the claim for
eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide need no longer
survives.
4. The father of the appellant – Raghunath Gopal
Deshmukh was the owner of a shop situated on the ground
floor ad-measuring about 188 square feet that was let out to
the father of the respondents as a monthly tenant. The
landlord on 28.11.2005 filed a suit for eviction of the tenants
inter alia, that the tenants were in arrears of rent, they had
carried out alterations of permanent nature, there was
bonafide need of the landlord and his family members as
regards the tenanted premises and that the tenants had sub-
let the premises to a sub-tenant. In paragraph 4 of the plaint,
it was pleaded as under:-
“4. The Plaintiff states that, the abovementioned shop i.e. shop
no.2, is required to the Plaintiff, for the bonafide use, occupation
and enjoyment for himself and their family members……..”
5. The respondents filed their written statement and
opposed the suit for eviction. They denied the entire case as
sought to be made out by the landlord. In response to the
averments as regards bonafide need of the suit premises, it was
pleaded in paragraph 3 as under:-
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 2 of 16
“3. With reference to para 4 of the Plaint, these Defendants
emphatically and in toto deny that the Plaintiff reasonably and
bonafide require the suit premises for himself and his family
members as alleged……...The son of the Plaintiff is employed with
a multi-national company and drawing handsome salary from the
company…………”
6. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the
parties framed various issues. Issue No.3 with regard to the
claim for bonafide need was framed by the Trial Court which
reads as under:-
“3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit premises are
reasonably and bonafide required by him for occupation by himself
or by any person for whose benefit the premises are held ?”
7. The landlord examined himself while the tenants
examined one witness. The Trial Court, after consideration of
the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that
though the landlord wanted to start business of a general
store, he had not decided the exact nature of business that he
intended to start. This, according to the Trial Court, created a
doubt about the intentions of the landlord. It, therefore,
recorded a finding that the landlord had failed to prove his
bonafide need. The other issues as framed were also answered
against the landlord and consequently, on 29.11.2016 the Trial
Court dismissed the suit for eviction.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 3 of 16
8. The landlord being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment
preferred an appeal challenging the decree. During pendency
of the appeal, the landlord expired on 24.07.2022.
Consequently, the legal heirs got themselves impleaded in the
appeal. After such impleadment, the appellant as a legal heir
of the landlord filed an application seeking leave to amend the
plaint. In the said application he referred to the averments
made in paragraph 4 of the plaint that originally the landlord
had pleaded the bonafide need for himself and his family
members. As per the proposed amendment, it was stated that
the appellant’s wife was an advocate and was operating her
office from a 100 square feet block that was situated behind
the said building. As a result, it was stated that she was having
less practice. She intended to practise from the suit premises
as it was facing the main road. It was further stated that the
appellant’s son had completed his education and intended to
start medical practise. On this basis, the need of the legal heirs
was sought to be pleaded.
9. The application for amendment was opposed by the
respondents. In paragraph 5 of the said reply, it was admitted
that in the suit, the landlord had pleaded that the suit
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 4 of 16
premises was required for himself and his family members. It
was, however, stated that subsequently the need of the family
members was given up. It was further stated that the legal
heirs of the original landlord could not put forward their
bonafide need by amending the plaint.
By filing a rejoinder, the appellant denied that the claim
of the original landlord was restricted only with regard to his
bonafide need. It was reiterated that the family was in need of
the suit premises.
1
10. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court
considered the application for amendment of the plaint. It
noted that when the suit was initially filed, the bonafide
requirement of the landlord, his son and wife had been
pleaded. It held that by virtue of the amendment as sought, no
adverse plea was being introduced nor was any admission
made earlier being withdrawn. With a view to avoid multiplicity
of proceedings and to decide all the questions arising, the
Appellate Bench held the amendment to be necessary. It,
accordingly, permitted the amendment subject to payment of
1
For short, ‘the Appellate Bench’
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 5 of 16
costs of ₹ 15,000/-. It further directed that after the plaint was
amended, the issue of bonafide requirement be referred to the
Trial Court and granted liberty to the respondents to amend
the written statement. Permission was also granted to both
parties to adduce evidence in this regard.
11. The tenants, being aggrieved by the order passed by the
Appellate Bench permitting amendment to the plaint
challenged the same by filing a writ petition under Article 227
2
of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court . A
learned Single Judge after hearing the parties held that the
original landlord had not pleaded that his son, daughter-in-
law or grandson also needed the premises for their use. He had
admitted in his cross-examination that his son and daughter-
in-law did not require the premises. 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. It was, thus, held that
with the death of the original landlord, his need had eclipsed
and the need that was now sought to be raised by amending
2
For short, “the High Court”
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 6 of 16
the plaint was contradictory to the evidence led by the
landlord. It was further held that the legal heirs of the original
landlord could file a fresh suit for eviction based on their claim
for bonafide requirement. Accordingly, by the judgment dated
07.08.2024, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set
aside the order passed by the Appellate Bench allowing the
amendment application. Liberty was granted to the legal heirs
to file a fresh suit on the basis of the cause of action that was
sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. Being
aggrieved, the son of the original landlord has come up in
appeal.
12. Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the
appellant submitted that the High Court erred in setting aside
the order passed by the Appellate Bench allowing the
amendment to the plaint by going into the merits of the case.
In the suit as originally filed, the landlord had pleaded about
the requirement for himself and his family members. Without
noticing these pleadings, the High Court proceeded on the
premise that what was pleaded in the plaint was only the
bonafide requirement of the original landlord. Even if it was
assumed that the original landlord did not depose about the
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 7 of 16
bonafide need of his family members, that would not preclude
the legal heirs of the original landlord from bringing on record
subsequent events to substantiate their bonafide requirement.
The Appellate Bench was justified in holding that if the legal
heirs of the original landlord could file a fresh suit for eviction,
the plaint could be permitted to be amended in view of
subsequent events. Moreover, liberty was granted to the
tenants to oppose the claim made by the legal heirs on merits.
Therefore, no prejudice, whatsoever, was caused to the tenants
even if the amendment was allowed. It was, thus, submitted
that the Appellate Bench having exercised discretion in favour
of the legal heirs of the original landlord and having permitted
the plaint to be amended, the High Court erred in interfering
with such discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. It was, thus, urged that the impugned judgment was
liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Appellate
Bench ought to be upheld.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Kumar Raizada, learned
Senior Advocate for the respondents supported the impugned
judgment. According to him, the High Court correctly found
that the original landlord in his deposition had clearly stated
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 8 of 16
that he alone had bonafide requirement of the suit premises.
He did not depose about the need of his son and daughter-in-
law. After the death of the original landlord, the suit could not
be continued. It was rightly found that if at all the legal heirs
of the original landlord had any bonafide requirement, they
could initiate fresh proceedings by filing another suit. Such
liberty had been granted to them by the High Court. The
impugned judgment having taken into consideration the legal
position as prevailing, there was no need to interfere with the
impugned judgment. No prejudice, whatsoever, was caused to
the legal heirs of the original landlord. It was, thus, submitted
that the impugned judgment did not warrant any interference
and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material on record, we are of the
considered view that the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was not justified
in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Appellate
Bench allowing the amendment to the plaint.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 9 of 16
15. Undisputedly, the Appellate Bench entertained the
application seeking amendment to the plaint moved by the
legal heirs of the landlord in the light of the fact that the
landlord had expired during pendency of the appeal. It
specifically noted in paragraph 16 of its order that the landlord
had filed the suit on account of bonafide requirement of himself
and his family members. It further observed that the
paramount need as pleaded was of the landlord. After finding
that the legal heirs did not seek to introduce any plea that was
adverse to that of the landlord, the amendment was allowed.
Liberty was granted to the tenants to consequentially amend
the written statement.
The finding recorded by the Appellate Court that in the
suit, the landlord had pleaded that the suit premises were
required reasonably and bonafidely for occupation by himself
and his family members is clear on perusal of paragraph 4 of
the plaint. Issue No.3 was also framed by the Trial Court in the
light of such pleadings. The tenants were aware of this fact and
in paragraph 5 of their reply to the amendment application,
they too referred to this aspect. Despite this position on record,
the High Court proceeded on the premise that in the plaint, it
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 10 of 16
was only the need of the landlord that was pleaded and not the
need of his family members. Observations in this regard can
be found in paragraphs 23 and 25 of the impugned order. The
same are found to be factually incorrect. It may be true that in
his deposition, the landlord deposed about only his
requirement and not that of his family members. But that is a
matter to be considered on merits of the claim and not while
determining the permissibility of the amendment.
It is, thus, clear that the High Court misdirected itself by
failing to notice the pleadings in paragraph 4 of the plaint that
have been reproduced hereinabove. This has resulted in
vitiating the impugned order.
16. Yet another aspect that goes to the root of the matter is
that the tenants challenged the order passed by the Appellate
Bench permitting the amendment by filing a writ petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled
that in exercise of such jurisdiction, it would not be open for
the High Court to review or reassess the material that was
taken into consideration by the Court while passing the
impugned order. In this regard we may usefully refer to the
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 11 of 16
3
decision in Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia ,
wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court held as under:
“11 ……The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case
which was sought to be set up by the appellant in the amendment.
This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is
not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up
will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High
Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article
4
227. In Sadhna Lodh v National Insurance Company , this Court
has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High
Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior
court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its
jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the
High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not
open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior
court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the
considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the
written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was no
reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227.”
Thus, the discretion exercised by the Appellate Bench
while allowing the amendment was not liable to be interfered
with in exercise of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
especially when there was no error of jurisdiction nor a
statutory bar for permitting the plaint to be amended based on
subsequent events.
17. Coming to the reasoning adopted by the High Court that
on the death of the original landlord, his bonafide need would
3
2017 INSC 1240
4
(2003) 3 SCC 524
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 12 of 16
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. 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. In this regard, we may refer
to the decision of this Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs.
5
The Motor & General Traders wherein it has been held as
under:
“First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis a vis circumstances
which come into being subsequent to the commencement of the
proceedings. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the
right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor
institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that
procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial
process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a
fundamental impact on the right to relief for the manner of
moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it
cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render
inept the decrotal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of
procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, with
5
1975 INSC 75
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 13 of 16
a view to promote substantial justice--subject, of course, to the
absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can
we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of
updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. If the litigation pends,
the power exists, absent other special circumstances repelling
resort to that course in law or justice.
We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy
claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and
factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in
many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and
developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding
provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously
obeyed.”
18. Yet another factor that impelled the High Court to
interfere was the direction of the Appellate Bench in remanding
the issue of bonafide requirement and hardship to the Trial
Court for recording evidence and returning a finding in that
regard. According to the High Court, the Trial Court had
neither omitted to frame such issue nor had failed to try the
same when it decided the suit. Hence, exercise of power by the
Appellate Bench under provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 of the
6
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 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
6
For short, “the Code”
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 14 of 16
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. It has to be exercised
in the facts and circumstances of the case when found
necessary by the Appellate Court for arriving at a right decision
in the suit.
In the facts of the present 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 to the Trial Court pursuant
to the plaint being amended. Liberty had been granted to the
defendants to amend the written statement and thereafter to
both parties to lead evidence. Hence, even on this count the
order of the Appellate Bench was not liable to be interfered
with.
19. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, we set aside
the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the High Court in
Writ Petition No.5976 of 2024. Consequently, the order passed
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 15 of 16
below Exhibit 38 by the Appellate Bench on 05.04.2024 stands
restored. The directions issued in the said order shall now
operate. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on
08.06.2026. The Trial Court is free to thereafter decide the
schedule of further proceedings keeping in mind the directions
issued by the Appellate Bench in its order dated 05.04.2024.
It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits
of the claim of either party and the proceedings be decided on
their own merits in accordance with law.
20. The Civil Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
…………………………..J.
[ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]
….…..………………………..J.
[ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ]
NEW DELHI,
th
APRIL 24 , 2026.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8991 of 2025 Page 16 of 16