High Court Cannot Evaluate Merits of Proposed Amendments While Exercising Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227

The appellant’s father (original landlord) filed a suit in 2005 for eviction of the respondents (tenants) from a shop, citing inter alia arrears of rent and "bonafide need" for himself and his family members

The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2016, doubting the landlord's intentions regarding the specific nature of the business intended

During the pendency of the appeal, the original landlord died (24.07.2022). The appellant (legal heir) sought to amend the plaint to update the "bonafide need" to reflect the requirements of the heirs (need for an advocate’s office and a medical practice)

The Appellate Bench allowed the amendment, but the Bombay High Court set it aside, holding that the original landlord’s need "eclipsed" upon his death and that the amendment introduced a case inconsistent with the landlord's previous testimony

The Court applied the principles of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC regarding the amendment of pleadings, emphasizing that amendments should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

It relied on Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia, establishing that under Article 227 of the Constitution, a High Court cannot engage in a merits-based review or reassess evidence when deciding the permissibility of an amendment

The Court invoked Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, which permits courts to take "cautious cognisance" of subsequent events (like the death of a party) to mould relief and ensure justice is legally and factually aligned with current realities

Finally, it applied Order XLI Rule 25 of the CPC, which empowers Appellate Courts to frame and refer issues of fact to the Trial Court if essential for a right decision on merits

The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred by factually misinterpreting the original plaint; while the High Court claimed only the landlord's individual need was pleaded, the record showed the "family members'" need was explicitly mentioned in paragraph 4

The Court reasoned that the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 by evaluating the merits of the proposed amendment and the strength of the landlord's prior deposition rather than focusing on the procedural necessity of the amendment

The Court clarified that the death of a landlord does not automatically extinguish a bonafide need claim; rather, subsequent events must be considered to prevent multiplicity of suits, especially since the legal heirs could otherwise file a fresh suit on the same grounds

The Court held that remanding the issue under Order XLI Rule 25 was a valid exercise of appellate power to determine essential facts post-amendment

The Court restored the order of the Appellate Bench permitting the amendment and directed the Trial Court to proceed with recording evidence on the updated issue of bonafide requirement. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on June 8, 2026