The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Bombay High Court order that dismissed a writ petition challenging the reversal of an eviction decree. The Bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, held that the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction by dismissing the petition solely because the plaintiffs failed to file a rejoinder to an affidavit regarding subsequent events. The Court has remanded the matter to the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, for a fresh decision.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to Room No. 59 and Room No. 63 at Iqbal Manzil, Parel, Mumbai. The appellant, Maria Martins, is a legal heir of Mr. Francis Paul Signatumartins, who was the monthly tenant of both rooms. Room No. 59 had been let out to Mr. Diego Zuzarte (predecessor of the respondents), who was treated as a sub-tenant.
In December 1994, the legal heirs of Mr. Martins filed an eviction suit under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, citing the “bonafide need” of the family. The Trial Court decreed the suit on July 18, 2001, finding that the premises were required for the privacy of Mr. Martins’ 87-year-old widow and visiting family members.
However, the first Appellate Court reversed this decree, reasoning that since the widow had expired during the proceedings, the bonafide need did not survive. The plaintiffs then approached the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Arguments and High Court’s Findings
During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, the original defendants placed on record an affidavit in reply dated April 12, 2023. They alleged that Room No. 63, which was in the occupation of the original plaintiffs, was not being utilized by them and had been let out to some other persons.
The High Court noticed that the plaintiffs had not filed a rejoinder to this affidavit. Consequently, the High Court held that the plaintiffs had let out Room No. 63 despite it being available, which indicated a lack of bonafide requirement for the suit premises. On this basis, the writ petition was dismissed.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s approach, stating that the writ petition did not warrant dismissal solely on the ground of non-traverse. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, writing the judgment, observed:
“Dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of non-traverse has, in our view, vitiated the impugned judgment.”
The Court emphasized that all relevant material brought on record by both parties ought to have been examined. While subsequent events can be considered, the Court noted that they are accompanied by three riders: they should be brought promptly to notice, follow rules of procedure allowing the opposite party to respond, and have a material bearing on the right to relief.
The Bench cited Maganlal son of Kishanlal Godha Vs. Nanasaheb son of Udhaorao Gadewar (2008), which held:
“The crucial event should be taken as on the date when the suit for eviction was filed, unless the subsequent events materially change the ground of relief.”
The Court further referenced Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (2001), noting that subsequent events may overshadow the genuineness of a landlord’s need only if they are “of such nature and dimension as to completely eclipse such need and make it lose the significance altogether.”
Final Decision
The Apex Court allowed the appeal and passed the following directions:
- The Bombay High Court’s order dated February 4, 2025, is set aside.
- The proceedings in R.A.E. Suit No. 70 of 1995 are remanded to the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, for being decided afresh in accordance with law.
- The parties are granted liberty to amend their pleadings and lead further evidence to buttress their respective stands.
- The Trial Court is directed to endeavour to decide the suit within one year from the date the parties appear before it.
- The parties are directed to appear before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, on April 22, 2026.
The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open for the Trial Court’s consideration.
Case Details
Case Title: Maria Martins v. Noel Zuzarte and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (@SLP (C) No. 11349 of 2025)
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: April 16, 2026
