Transmarine Corporation & Ors vs Zensar Technologies Ltd.& Ors

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.....................2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16734-16735 of 2008)

Transmarine Corporation & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

Zensar Technologies Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

ORDER

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In a suit for eviction from an area of 3000 sq. ft. on the 4 th

floor of a building known as "Dubash House" situated at

Ballard Estate Mumbai, an application for amendment of

the written statement was filed at the instance of the

defendants/respondents. The respondents are contesting

this suit by filing a written statement and also by filing an

additional written statement. At the stage of recording

evidence in the suit, the respondents filed an application for

amendment of the written statement, which was rejected by

the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on 13th of January,

1 2007. A second application for amendment of the written

statement was again filed at the instance of the

respondents on 12th of March, 2007, which too was

rejected by the same Court by an order dated 28th of June,

2007. A revisional application, which was filed against the

order dated 28th of June, 2007 rejecting the application for

amendment for the second time, was also rejected by the

Revisional Court on 14th of August, 2007.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ

application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay

for setting aside the orders dated 13th of January, 2007 and

14th of August, 2007 rejecting the prayer for amendment of

the written statement made at the instance of the

respondents. The High Court by the impugned order dated

5th of September, 2007 disposed of the writ application by

the following direction :-

"Hence, the trial Court is directed to decide the issue which involves plaintiff's title in accordance with law and also on the basis of evidence other than the admission of the petitioners."

4. This order has been challenged by the landlord before

us by way of a Special Leave Petition, which on grant of

2 leave, has been heard in presence of the learned counsel

for the parties.

5. Having considered the nature of the suit which is

simply a suit for eviction and also repeated rejection of the

application for amendment of the written statement by the

courts below, the High Court although had not allowed the

writ petition, but at the same time, directed the trial Court to

decide the issue of title, which is not permissible in law in a

suit for eviction simplicitor. In our view, in a suit for

eviction, if it is not filed on the ground of bonafide

requirement of the landlords and since the respondents

have already admitted the relationship of landlord and

tenant between the parties, there was no necessity for the

High Court to direct that the issue regarding the title of the

plaintiff in respect of the suit premises should be decided in

accordance with law and also on the evidence other than

the admission of the respondents. In view of the

discussions made hereinabove, we are, therefore, unable

to accept this part of the impugned order, particularly in

view of the fact that in a suit for eviction in which

3 relationship between the parties has been admitted, it

would not be open for the tenant to deny the title of the

landlords/appellants. In view of the above, we are,

therefore, of the view that the courts below had rightly

rejected the application for amendment of the written

statement filed by the respondents and at the same time,

the High Court was not justified in directing the trial Court to

decide the issue which involves the title of the

plaintiffs/appellants on the basis of evidence other than the

admission of the respondents. Accordingly, this part of the

order namely, "Hence, the trial Court is directed to decide

the issue which involves plaintiff's title in accordance with

law and also on the basis of evidence other than the

admission of the petitioners", is hereby deleted from the

impugned order of the High Court and the application for

amendment of the written statement is also rejected.

6. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit, which is simply

a suit for eviction, at an early date, preferably within six

months from the date of communication of this order to it,

without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the

4 parties. The appeals are thus allowed to the extent

indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.

..........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ...........................J. September 01, 2009. [R. M. Lodha ]

5