Case at a Glance
A daughter of the original landlords of a six-flat building in Chembur, Mumbai sought eviction of tenants from a flat let in 1962, citing her family’s bona fide need. She won in the Small Causes Court in 2007 and in appeal in 2017, but the Bombay High Court reversed both in 2025. The Supreme Court restored the eviction decree, holding that pleadings need state only material facts, that she was a co-landlord through share certificates, that an oral family arrangement could be relied upon, and that greater hardship lay with her — especially since a tenant-side family member had sold a flat for Rs. 12 lakh during the suit.
The appellant’s parents held a 99-year lease from St. Anthony’s Homes Cooperative Society and built “Memorare”, a six-flat building at 16th Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Share certificates were issued in 1959 and later transferred into joint names in 1987. Flat No. 2 was let to the Lacerda family in 1962. In July 1993, shortly after the death of the widow who had succeeded to the tenancy, an eviction suit was filed under Sections 13(1)(g) read with 13(2), 13(1)(l) and 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 — on the grounds of bona fide need, the tenants’ acquisition of alternative accommodation, and change of user. The appellant’s father died during the suit in 1994.
On 14 September 2007 the Small Causes Court decreed eviction in favour of the appellant (Plaintiff No. 1), while rejecting the change-of-user plea. The tenants’ appeal was dismissed on 25 July 2017. On 23 June 2025, the Bombay High Court in revision set aside the concurrent decrees and restored possession to the tenant-side respondent. The record showed that Defendant No. 1 owned a flat in the Madhuwana Society, Andheri, and Defendant No. 2 sold another flat in the same society in 2002, during the suit, for Rs. 12 lakh. The landlord’s daughter appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the High Court justified in reversing concurrent eviction decrees on grounds of deficient pleadings and the landlord’s status, where the landlord’s daughter had proved co-ownership, bona fide need and comparative hardship?
Pleadings, Co-Landlordship and Comparative Hardship
The Court restated that pleadings must contain material facts, not the evidence by which they are proved — “facta probanda and not facta probantia” — citing Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh, (2006) 12 SC CK 0088, (2007) 3 SCC 617 and Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 09 SC CK 0039, (2008) 17 SCC 491. In an eviction suit, “the plaintiff has to plead and prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship”, and the plaint’s averments of co-landlordship and the statutory grounds were sufficient. Relying on Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, (1987) 04 SC CK 0052, (1987) 2 SCC 555, the Court held that a pleading gap cannot be raised belatedly where, in substance, the parties knew the case and went to trial on it. Under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act and the share certificates, the appellant was a co-owner and a “landlord” under Section 5(3) of the Act: she “has conclusively proved that, at the time of filing the suit, she was a holder of the share certificates.”
Taking cautious cognisance of subsequent events such as her father’s death, and relying on Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 01 SC CK 0018, (1976) 3 SCC 119 and Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 03 SC CK 0035, (1975) 1 SCC 770, the Court held that “the Appellant is entitled to rely upon the oral family arrangement/settlement”, without needing a partition decree. On need, the appellant — whose husband, a retired Air Force officer, had faced transfers that affected their children’s schooling — had no accommodation of her own in Mumbai, and a tenant cannot dictate the suitability of premises to the landlord. The sale of a flat during the pendency of the suit was treated as aimed at avoiding eviction, and the Court concluded that “greater hardship would be caused to the Appellant if eviction were denied.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Pleadings need only state material facts; the plaint sufficiently pleaded co-landlordship and the statutory grounds, and parties who knew the case and led evidence cannot later complain of a pleading gap.
- The appellant was a co-landlord when the suit was filed, by virtue of the share certificates and Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, and could rely on an oral family arrangement.
- Bona fide need was proved, and comparative hardship favoured the landlord, given the tenants’ other accommodation and the Rs. 12 lakh sale during the suit.
- The High Court’s judgment of 23 June 2025 was set aside and the Small Causes Court’s eviction decree of 14 September 2007 restored.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects landlords from having concurrent eviction decrees overturned on hyper-technical pleading objections in revision.
- It treats a tenant’s disposal of alternative accommodation during litigation as relevant to comparative hardship.
- It confirms that co-owners and family members under an oral family arrangement can maintain eviction suits for bona fide need.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Landlords and Tenants
- A landlord’s family need, including a daughter’s need for her own home, can be bona fide; the tenant cannot dictate which premises suit the landlord.
- Tenants who sell other accommodation during an eviction case risk that conduct being weighed against them on hardship.
For Counsel
- Plead material facts — ownership, relationship, statutory grounds — and lead evidence; belated objections to pleadings will fail if the case was tried on those issues.
- Use share certificates and Section 8 TPA to establish co-landlordship in cooperative-society buildings.
- Bring subsequent events, such as a co-owner’s death, on record; courts may take cautious cognisance of them.
Key Takeaways
- Pleadings state facts, not evidence.
- Share certificates can prove co-landlord status in society buildings.
- An oral family arrangement can be relied upon without a partition decree.
- Eviction decree of 2007 restored after three decades of litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a landlord’s daughter seek eviction for her own need?
Yes. Here the Supreme Court held the appellant, a co-landlord by share certificates, proved bona fide need and comparative hardship, and restored the eviction decree.
Does it matter if a tenant sells his other flat during the case?
In this case the Court treated the sale of a flat for Rs. 12 lakh during the suit as aimed at avoiding eviction and weighed it in the landlord’s favour on hardship.
Can a tenant raise a defect in the landlord’s pleadings for the first time later?
The Court held that where parties knew the case in substance and went to trial on it, a pleading gap cannot be raised belatedly.
Conclusion
Marietta D’Silva v. Rudolf Clothan Lacerda brings to an end an eviction dispute that began in 1993. The Supreme Court refused to let technical objections about pleadings defeat a landlord who had proved her title, her family’s need and the balance of hardship before two fact-finding courts.
Practical takeaway: In rent revisions, concurrent findings on bona fide need and hardship should not be disturbed on pleading technicalities when the parties knew and tried the real case.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com