The Supreme Court of India has held that the death of a landlord does not automatically terminate an eviction claim based on “bonafide need,” and legal heirs can amend the plaint to include their own requirements. A Bench of Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Bombay High Court order that had refused such an amendment, clarifying that courts cannot examine the merits of a case while considering a prayer for leave to amend a plaint.
Background
The dispute involves a shop ad-measuring 188 square feet in Mumbai, owned by Raghunath Gopal Deshmukh. In 2005, the landlord filed a suit for eviction against the tenants, stating in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the premises were required for the “bonafide use, occupation and enjoyment for himself and their family members.”
The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2016, finding that the landlord failed to prove a specific bonafide need. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord died on July 24, 2022. His legal heirs were impleaded and subsequently moved an application to amend the plaint, stating that the premises were now needed for the landlord’s wife (an advocate) and son (a medical practitioner).
The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court allowed the amendment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However, the Bombay High Court reversed this, holding that the original landlord’s need had “eclipsed” upon his death and that allowing the amendment would introduce a “totally new case.”
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellant: Senior Advocate Aniruddha Joshi argued that the High Court erred by diving into the merits of the case at the amendment stage. He emphasized that the original plaint already included the needs of “family members” and that legal heirs are entitled to bring subsequent events on record.
For the Respondents: Senior Advocate Ravindra Kumar Raizada supported the High Court’s view, contending that the original landlord had deposed only about his personal requirement. He argued that the suit could not be continued by legal heirs for their own needs and they should instead file a fresh suit.
Court’s Analysis: Subsequent Events and Moulding of Relief
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had factually misdirected itself by failing to notice that paragraph 4 of the original plaint already mentioned the needs of family members.
In paragraph 17, the Court addressed the core question of whether a bonafide need claim ends with the landlord’s death. The Bench held:
“This proposition cannot have a blanket application. The same would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
While acknowledging that rights are generally judged at the commencement of litigation, the Court emphasized the doctrine of “moulding relief” based on subsequent events. Citing Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor & General Traders (1975), the Bench observed:
“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.”
The Court affirmed that to make a remedy “just and meaningful” and in accord with “current realities,” courts must take cognisance of developments occurring after the institution of the proceedings, provided fairness to both sides is maintained.
Supervisory Jurisdiction and Procedural Orders
The Bench reiterated that under Article 227, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to reassess evidence or merits. Quoting Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia (2017), it noted:
“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.”
The Supreme Court also upheld the Appellate Bench’s decision to remand the issue of bonafide requirement to the Trial Court under Order XLI Rule 25 of the CPC, noting that such power is essential to decide a suit on its actual merits after an amendment.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment dated August 7, 2024. The order of the Appellate Bench was restored, and the parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on June 8, 2026. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the eviction claim itself, which remains to be decided by the lower court.
Case Details
Case Title: Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh vs. Natwarlal Shamji Gada and Another
Case No.: Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8991 of 2025
Bench: Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: April 24, 2026
