Subsequent family arrangements and evidence of alternate accommodation satisfy bona fide need under Rent Act.

The Appellant (Plaintiff No. 1) is a co-landlord and co-owner of "Memorare Building" in Mumbai

In 1993, she filed an eviction suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, against the legal heirs of the original sub-tenant, Mr. Augustine Lacerda

The grounds for eviction included bona fide requirement (Section 13(1)(g)), acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenants (Section 13(1)(l)), and change of user (Section 13(1)(k))

The Trial Court and Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court concurrently decreed the eviction in favor of the Appellant

However, in 2025, the High Court of Bombay set aside these findings in revision, dismissing the suit and ordering restoration of possession to the Respondent

The High Court’s decision was primarily based on the purported lack of specific pleadings regarding the Appellant’s status as landlord and the "family arrangement" that allegedly distributed the flats

Order VI Rules 1, 2, and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandate that pleadings must state material facts (facta probanda) but not the evidence (facta probantia) by which they are to be proved

Section 5(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, which defines a "landlord" as anyone entitled to receive rent

Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh regarding the distinction between material facts and evidence

Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, which held that technical deficiencies in pleadings cannot be raised in appeal if the parties were aware of the issues and led evidence at trial

Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, establishing that interest in land includes buildings attached to it

Principle from Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders allowing courts to consider subsequent developments to ensure justice

The Supreme Court found that the Appellant’s plaint sufficiently alleged her status as a co-landlord—a material fact (facta probanda)—while the specific share certificates and oral family arrangements provided during trial were evidence (facta probantia) intended to prove that status

The Court held that the High Court erred in requiring the Appellant to plead internal family arrangements in the 1993 plaint, especially since those arrangements evolved after the death of her father in 1994

Regarding bona fide need, the Court noted the Appellant had no other residence in Mumbai and her temporary stay in other family flats (Nos. 5 & 6) did not negate her need, as those flats were earmarked for her brothers under a valid oral family settlement

On the issue of comparative hardship, the Court observed that the tenants (Respondents) had acquired multiple alternative properties, some of which were sold during litigation to defeat the suit, whereas the Appellant remained without exclusive accommodation

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the eviction decree passed by the Small Causes Court. The Appellant’s right to seek eviction as a co-owner/landlord was upheld regardless of any formal partition, based on the equitable principles governing family arrangements and the established facts of the case