MANOJ MISRA, MANMOHAN
Marietta D’ Silva – Appellant
Versus
Rudolf Clothan Lacerda – Respondent
How to determine what constitutes a pleading and the distinction between pleading and proof in eviction cases? What is the effect of subsequent events on a pending eviction proceeding and under what fairness constraints can they be considered? What are the rights and validity of relying on an oral family arrangement/family settlement in proving landlord-tenant status and bona fide need for eviction?
Key Points: - Appellant was a co-landlord with share certificates proving her interest in the land and her status as landlord at the time of filing; pleadings contained grounds under Section 13(1)(g), 13(2), and 13(1)(l) of the Act. (!) (!) (!) - The court held that pleadings must state facts, not law, and distinguish between facta probanda (material facts) and facta probantia (evidence), with evidence not to be pleaded; both pleading and proof can be satisfied in eviction suits under appropriate circumstances. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court acknowledged that in certain circumstances, courts can take cautious cognizance of events occurring after the institution of the proceedings to honor current realities, provided fairness is observed. (!) (!) - The judgment recognizes that a family arrangement can be relied upon, including oral family arrangements, to support landlord-tenant status and bona fide need, even if no partition decree exists, as a subsequent development. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd June 2025 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No. 308 of 2019 whereby the High Court allowed the revision application filed by Respondent No.1 and set aside concurrent findings in the judgment dated 14th September, 2007 passed by Small Causes Court at Bombay in Rent and Eviction Suit No. 411/861 of 1996 as also judgment and order dated 25th July 2017 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 677 of 2007. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the suit filed by the Appellant-Plaintiff No. 1 seeking eviction of Respondent No.1 was dismissed and Appellant/Plaintiff No. 1 was directed to restore possession of the premises in question to Respondent No.1.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Briefly stated, the material facts are that a 99-year lease of land was granted by the St. Anthony’s Homes Cooperative Society Ltd. in favour of the parents of Appellant-Plaintiff No.1. Upon the leased land, the parents constructed the Memorare Building (“Suit Building”) situated at 16th Road, Chemb
Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491 [Paras 21
Kanaklata Das & Ors. v. Naba Kumar Das & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 352 [Paras 35
Bharat Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 534 [Para 35] – Relied
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders
Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh vs. Natwarlal Shamji Gada & Anr.
Kale & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.
Hari Shankar Singhania & Ors. vs. Gaur Hari Singhania & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.