The Supreme Court has asserted that while considering an application for amendment of pleadings, the court is not to examine the merits or demerits of the case sought to be introduced by such amendment, and the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with a discretionary order permitting amendment by entering into the merits of the amended case or reassessing the material considered by the subordinate court, so long as there is no jurisdictional error or statutory bar.
The Apex Court laid down that the effect of the death of the original landlord on a plea of bona fide requirement cannot be decided by applying a blanket rule that the need perishes with the landlord; where subsequent events materially affect the right to relief, the court may take cognizance of such events and permit amendment so that the real controversy is adjudicated, subject to fairness to the opposite party.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the High Court proceeded on a factually incorrect premise in assuming that the original plaint pleaded only the need of the landlord and not of his family members. On a plain reading of paragraph 4 of the plaint, as well as Issue No. 3 framed by the Trial Court and even the tenants’ reply to the amendment application, it was clear that the bona fide requirement of the landlord and his family members had been pleaded from the outset. The fact that the landlord, in his evidence, may have deposed only about his own requirement was held to be a matter going to the merits of the claim and not to the permissibility of amendment.
The Bench further observed that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court could not enter into the merits of the case sought to be introduced by amendment or reassess the material considered by the subordinate court. The Supreme Court reiterated that whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at trial, and that interference under Article 227 is impermissible where the subordinate court has acted within jurisdiction and there is no statutory bar.
The Bench also rejected the High Court’s broad proposition that upon the death of the original landlord, his bona fide need necessarily comes to an end and the legal heirs cannot pursue eviction on the basis of their own need. It held that such a proposition cannot have blanket application and depends on the facts of each case. The Bench reiterated that subsequent events having a material bearing on entitlement to relief may be taken into account, and the court can mould relief accordingly, provided fairness to both sides is maintained.
Briefly, original landlord had filed a suit for eviction on November 28, 2005 against the tenants in respect of a shop premises on grounds including arrears of rent, permanent alterations, sub-letting, and bona fide requirement for himself and his family members. It was specifically pleaded that the shop was required for the bona fide use, occupation, and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his family members. The tenants denied this case in their written statement, and the Trial Court framed a specific issue on whether the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the plaintiff for occupation by himself or any person for whose benefit the premises were held.
The Trial Court dismissed the eviction suit on November 29, 2016, holding that the landlord had failed to prove bona fide need, inter alia, because although he intended to start a general store, he had not decided the exact nature of the business. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord died on July 24, 2022, and his legal heirs were brought on record. Thereafter, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed, stating that the appellant’s wife, an advocate, intended to use the suit premises for her office, and the appellant’s son intended to start medical practice from the premises; on that basis, the need of the legal heirs was sought to be pleaded.
The Appellate Court allowed the amendment application subject to costs of Rs. 15,000, holding that the original plaint had already pleaded the requirement of the landlord and his family members, that no adverse plea was being introduced, and that the amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It also directed that after amendment, the issue of bona fide requirement be referred to the Trial Court, with liberty to the tenants to amend their written statement and to both sides to adduce evidence.
The High Court, however, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside that order on the ground that the amendment introduced a totally new and inconsistent case after the death of the original landlord, though it granted liberty to file a fresh suit. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order allowing amendment.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Aniruddha Joshi, AOR Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, and Advocate Anoop Raj, for the Appellant
AOR Leena Jayesh Shah, for the Respondent
