Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh – Appellant
Versus
Natwarlal Shamji Gada And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6677 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 8991 of 2025)
Decided On : 24-04-2026
Key Points: - The amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 cannot be used to probe merits or forecast success; merits are not to be considered at the stage of amendment. (!) (!) (!) - Subsequent events, such as death of the landlord and the addition of legal heirs’ bonafide need, can be considered to mould relief and allow amendment, without precluding the heirs from pursuing relief, and the appellate court may remand for evidence accordingly. (!) (!) (!) - High Court’s interference under Article 227 cannot reassess the evidence or substitute its view on merits merely because of the amendment; discretion exercised by the Appellate Bench to permit amendment should not be disturbed absent jurisdictional error. (!) (!) (!) - The Appellate Court’s power under Order XLI Rule 25 to frame or determine essential fact issues post-amendment is permissible and binding unless there is a jurisdictional error. (!) (!) - The judgment confirms that the civil appeal is allowed, with the Appellate Bench’s amendment order restored and clarified that merits will be decided later by the Trial Court. (!) (!) - Prior pleadings indicated bonafide need for landlord and family; the amendment sought to include heirs’ bonafide need without introducing an inconsistent plea. (!) (!) (!) - High Court’s reading that only the landlord’s need was pleaded, and that heirs’ need cannot be added, was reversed. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. amendment permissibility assessed without merits examination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. landlord pleaded but failed to prove family bona fide need. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. heirs seek amendment post-death; appellate allows, hc reverses. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. parties contest amendment as new claim versus update. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. hc misread plaint, wrongly assessed amendment merits. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. art. 227 bars re-assessing evidence or discretion. (Para 16) |
| 7. subsequent events mould relief if material. (Para 17) |
| 8. appellate power to remand fact issues under o.41 r.25. (Para 18) |
| 9. appeal allowed; appellate amendment order restored. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. I.A. No.102914 of 2025 is allowed. Names of respondent Nos.3 and 4 are deleted from the array of parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The question that arises for consideration in this civil appeal is whether the Court can examine the merits/demerits of the case while considering the prayer for grant of leave to amend the plaint. Consequentially, can the amendment of the plaint sought by the legal heirs of the landlord be refused on the ground that after the death of the landlord, the claim for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide need no longer survives.
4. The father of the appellant – Raghunath Gopal Deshmukh was the owner of a shop situated on the ground floor ad-measuring about 188 square feet that was let out to the father of the respondents as a monthly tenant. The landlord on 28.11.2005 filed a suit for eviction of the tenants inter alia, that the tenants were in arrears of rent, they had carried out alterations of permanent nature, there was bonafide need of the landlord and his family members as regards the tenanted premises and that the tenants had sub-let the premises to a sub-tenant. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it was pleaded as under:-
5. The respondents filed their written statement and opposed the suit for eviction. They denied the entire case as sought to be made out by the landlord. In response to the averments as regards bonafide need of the suit premises, it was pleaded in paragraph 3 as under:-
6. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties framed various issues. Issue No.3 with regard to the claim for bonafide need was framed by the Trial Court which reads as under:-
7. The landlord examined himself while the tenants examined one witness. The Trial Court, after consideration of the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that though the landlord wanted to start business of a general store, he had not decided the exact nature of business that he intended to start. This, according to the Trial Court, created a doubt about the intentions of the landlord. It, therefore, recorded a finding that the landlord had failed to prove his bonafide need. The other issues as framed were also answered against the landlord and consequently, on 29.11.2016 the Trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction.
8. The landlord being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment preferred an appeal challenging the decree. During pendency of the appeal, the landlord expired on 24.07.2022. Consequently, the legal heirs got themselves impleaded in the appeal. After such impleadment, the appellant as a legal heir of the landlord filed an application se
Courts cannot examine merits while deciding plaint amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Article 227 does not permit High Courts to reassess evidence or interfere with discretionary orders absent jur....
Legal heirs in eviction proceedings cannot introduce new inconsistent requirements post-decision of the original cause, as they are bound by the pleadings of their predecessor.
Heirs of a deceased landlord must establish their own bonafide requirement for eviction; the original requirement does not automatically extend to them.
Legal heirs cannot introduce new claims in eviction proceedings after the death of original petitioners, as their right to seek eviction based on personal requirement becomes extinct.
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....
The death of a landlord necessitates that a legal heir must establish their own bonafide requirement for premises independently, distinguishing it from the deceased's claims.
The landlord's bona fide requirement for additional living space for a growing family takes precedence over a tenant's claim to a property used occasionally for health benefits.
The crucial date for determining the bonafide need of the landlord is the date of institution of the eviction suit, and subsequent events, such as the death of the landlord, do not necessarily result....
Legal representatives can continue eviction proceedings following the original landlord's death if the need for eviction was established as bona fide and relevant to family members.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
