The court reinforced that the assessment of bonafide need in eviction cases must consider all pertinent evidence and events existing at the time of filing, with subsequent developments evaluated only if they significantly affect the rights involved.

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 04th February 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court¹[For short, “the High Court”] in Writ Petition No.1458 of 2003. By the said order, the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the reversal of the decree for eviction by the first Appellate Court came to be dismissed.

3. The appellant is one of the legal heirs of Mr. Francis Paul Martins. According to the legal heirs of Mr. Martins, he was a monthly tenant of Room Nos.59 and 63 situated at Iqbal Manzil, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai-400 012. Room No.59 had been let out to Mr. Diego Zuzarte, the predecessor of the respondents. He was paying rent to Mr. Martins and was treated as his sub-tenant. On 5th December, 1994, suit for eviction came to be filed under Section 28 of the BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT , 1947²[For short, the Act] by the legal heirs of Mr. Martins. The eviction of the sub-tenant was sought on the ground of bonafide need of the family of the principal tenant. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs required the suit premises for their bonafide need so as to occupy the same. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the case as pleaded was denied.

4. Before the Trial Court, the parties led evidence. By judgment dated 18th July 2001, the learned Judge of the Trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs had proved their bonafide need in respect of Room No.59 that was occupied by the defendants as the said premises was required for privacy of the widow of Mr. Martins, who was an old lady having 87 years of age and there were six daughters who used to visit her place. It was further held that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if the decree for eviction was not passed. The suit was, accordingly, decreed.

The defendants being aggrieved by the decree of eviction challenged the same by filing an appeal. The Appellate Court reversed the said decree on the reasoning that the plaintiff No.1, who was the widow of Mr. Martins had expired and, therefore, the bonafide need of the plaintiffs did not survive. Accordingly, the decree for eviction was set aside and the suit for eviction was dismissed.

5. The original plaintiffs being aggrieved by the reversal of the decree for eviction approached the High Court and challenged the aforesaid judgment in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. During pendency of the writ petition, the original defendants placed on record an affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023, wherein it was stated that Room No.63 that was in occupation of the original plaintiffs was not being utilised by them and that the said room was occupied by some other persons. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the original plaintiffs had not filed any rejoinder to the defendants’ affidavit. The High Court, thus, held that the plaintiffs had let out Room No.63 despite the same being available to them which indicated that they did not bonafide require the suit premises. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved, one of the original plaintiffs has filed the present appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documentary material on record, we are of the view that the writ petition did not warrant dismissal solely on the ground that the original plaintiffs failed to file any rejoinder to the defendants’ affidavit in reply dated 12th April 2023. In our vie