In Eviction Suits, Plaint Must Plead Material Facts, Not Evidence; Bona Fide Need Can Be Proved Through Trial Evidence

Held: The Supreme Court held that in an eviction suit under a Rent Act, the landlord is required to plead and prove the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the statutory ground for eviction, but the plaint need not contain the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. The Court clarified that pleadings must contain material facts, not evidentiary details, and that where parties understood the case, went to trial, and led evidence, a technical objection of deficient pleading cannot be used at the appellate or revisional stage to defeat a decree. The Court further held that a co-owner who is entitled to receive rent is a landlord, that an oral family arrangement can be relied upon, and that temporary occupation of another family flat does not negate bona fide requirement when the landlord has no suitable independent accommodation and the tenant has acquired alternative accommodation.

Summary: The appellant, Marietta D’ Silva, filed an eviction suit concerning Flat No. 2 in the Memorare Building at Chembur, Mumbai, claiming bona fide requirement, greater hardship, and acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenants under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Small Causes Court decreed the suit in her favour, holding that she had established her bona fide need and that the tenants had suitable alternative accommodation, and the Appellate Bench affirmed the decree. The Bombay High Court, in revision, reversed the concurrent findings and directed restoration of possession to the tenant, principally on the ground that the appellant’s case regarding landlordship and family arrangement was not properly pleaded. The Supreme Court held that the plaint sufficiently pleaded the appellant’s status as co-landlord and the statutory grounds for eviction, while the share certificates, family arrangement, and evidence regarding her need were matters of proof and not facts required to be fully pleaded. The Court also held that the appellant, being co-owner of the land and building and entitled to receive rent, fell within the statutory definition of landlord, and that subsequent developments and oral family arrangements could be considered where fairness to both sides was preserved.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No. 308 of 2019, and restored the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2007 passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Rent and Eviction Suit No. 411/861 of 1996. The Court held that the appellant had successfully proved her bona fide requirement and that greater hardship would be caused to her if eviction were denied, particularly since the tenants had alternative accommodation whereas the appellant continued to have no suitable accommodation in Mumbai. Pending applications were disposed of.