Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Natwarlal Shamji Gada – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :
1) Petitioner challenges order dated 5 April 2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court allowing application at Exhibit-38 filed by Plaintiff and permitting him to carry out amendment in the plaint. The Appellate Bench has referred the case to the Trial Court for inviting its finding on the issue of bonafide requirement and hardship after amendment of the Plaint. Petitioner- Defendant No.1 is thus aggrieved by the Appellate Court’s order permitting amendment of Plaint at appellate stage and remanding the suit for inviting findings of the Trial Court on the issue of bonafide requirement and hardship.
2) Respondent No.1-original Plaintiff had instituted R.A.E.& R. Suit No.102/152 of 2006 in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises comprising of Shop No.2, admeasuring 188 sq.ft, ground floor, Laxman Zulla, 50 Ranade Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028 (Suit Premises). Eviction of Defendants was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, erection of permanent structure and reasonable and bonafide requirement of the Plaintiff. It appears that additional issue relating to subletting w
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.
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....
Heirs of a deceased landlord must establish their own bonafide requirement for eviction; the original requirement does not automatically extend to them.
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.
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 bonafide requirement for eviction must be established and maintained throughout proceedings, and admissions in cross-examination do not negate established needs.
The court established that subsequent events, such as the death of landlords, must be considered in eviction proceedings to ensure justice and the rightful assessment of bona fide needs.
Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify absence of material relevant in plaint.
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
