The Supreme Court held that material facts alone are required in pleadings, while evidence supporting those facts may emerge during proof, and that an eviction decree cannot be defeated merely because evidence elaborates upon pleaded facts.

on

Facts

The appellant sought eviction of the respondents from Flat No. 2 situated in the “Memorare Building” at Chembur, Mumbai under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit was instituted on grounds of bona fide requirement, comparative hardship, and acquisition of alternate accommodation by the tenants under ss. 13(1)(g), 13(1)(l), and 13(2) of the Act.

The appellant and her siblings became co-owners of the building through transfer of share certificates originally held by their parents. The tenant family occupied the suit premises since 1962. After the death of the original tenant and subsequently his widow, eviction proceedings were initiated against their heirs.

The Small Causes Court decreed eviction, finding that the appellant genuinely required the premises and that the tenants possessed alternate accommodation. The appellate court affirmed the decree. However, the Bombay High Court reversed the concurrent findings, holding that the appellant had failed to properly plead her status as landlord and that reliance upon an oral family arrangement and share certificates amounted to introducing an unpleaded case.

Issues Framed
Whether the appellant had sufficiently pleaded and proved her status as landlord and bona fide requirement under the Rent Act, and whether evidence relating to family arrangement and co-ownership could be relied upon despite alleged deficiencies in pleadings.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court undertook an extensive discussion on the law of pleadings under Order VI CPC. It explained that pleadings must contain only “material facts” (facta probanda) and not the evidence by which those facts are proved (facta probantia). The object of pleadings is to provide fair notice of the case and narrow disputes between parties.

(b) Distinguishing pleadings from proof, the Court held that evidence supporting pleaded facts need not itself be pleaded. Referring to Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh, the Court reiterated that material facts alone are necessary in pleadings, whereas evidentiary particulars may emerge during trial.

(c) Applying these principles, the Court found that the plaint sufficiently pleaded that the appellant was a co-landlord and sought eviction on statutory grounds under the Rent Act. The subsequent affidavit evidence regarding share certificates, family arrangement, and occupation pattern merely constituted proof of already pleaded facts.

(d) The Court further held that even if there were any technical deficiencies in pleadings, the issue could not be raised belatedly in appeal where parties fully understood the controversy and had led evidence on the point. Reliance was placed on Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College and Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal.

(e) On title and landlordship, the Court held that ownership of share certificates relating to the land necessarily carried co-ownership rights in the building erected thereon under s. 8 Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Since the appellant was a co-owner entitled to receive rent, she fell within the definition of “landlord” under s. 5(3) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(f) The Court also accepted the appellant’s reliance upon an oral family arrangement regarding occupation of flats by siblings, observing that oral family settlements are legally recognized and enforceable.

(g) On bona fide requirement and comparative hardship, the Court found that the appellant had no independent accommodation in Mumbai and required the premises for herself and her family. In contrast, the tenants had acquired alternate accommodation and even alienated one such flat during pendency of litigation. The hardship therefore tilted decisively in favour of the landlord.

Held
The High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings of fact. The eviction decree passed by the Small Causes Court and affirmed in appeal was restored. The appellant was held entitled to eviction of the respondents from the suit premises.

Ratio
In eviction proceedings, pleadings need contain only material facts constituting the cause of action, while evidentiary details may emerge during proof; where parties understood the controversy and led evidence thereon, technical objections regarding pleadings cannot defeat substantive relief. 

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 496
Decided on: 15 May 2026
Case Title: Marietta D’Silva v. Rudolf Clothan Lacerda & Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Manmohan, J. and Manoj Misra, J.