Marietta D’Silva v. Rudolf Clothan Lacerda 2026 INSC 496 - Bombay Rent Act - Pleadings & Proof
Pleadings, Bona Fide Need and Alternative Accommodation Under Bombay Rent Act
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section 13- For the purposes of Section 13(1)(l) of the Act, it is sufficient for the landlord to establish that tenants had alternative accommodation available to them - the conduct of tenant in selling his alternative accommodation during the pendency of the suit indicates that the sale was effected only to avoid a decree of eviction. (Para 55-57) In a suit for eviction under the State Rent Act, the plaintiff has to plead and prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and the statutory ground for eviction under the Rent Act. (Para 36) A tenant cannot dictate to the landlord the suitability of the tenanted premises, nor insist that the landlord utilise some other property. (Para 52) The right to relief is normally to be judged as on the date the proceeding is instituted, yet it is equally well settled that the Court can take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceedings, provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously observed. (Para 47) [Context: The Supreme Court restored the eviction decree in favour of the landlady, holding that her status as co‑owner and co‑landlord and her bona fide requirement had been both properly pleaded in substance and duly proved]
Code of Civil Procedure -Order VI Rule 2- Pleading -Pleadings of the parties form the foundation of their case as they are the statement of facts in writing drawn up and filed in a Court by each party stating therein what his/her contention shall be at the trial. The requisites of a good and sufficient pleading are that it should contain (1) a statement of facts, not law, (2) material facts only, (3) facts, not evidence and (4) facts stated in a summary form. (Para 27-31) -The material facts on which a party relies are called Facta Prabanda, i.e. the facts to be proved and they are required to be stated in the pleadings. The evidence or facts by which Facta Probanda are to be proved are called Facta Probantia and these are not to be included in the pleadings. Facta Probanda are not the facts in issue rather, they are the relevant facts which, when proved at trial, establish the facts in issue. Para 32) Pleading and proof - Pleading is the formal assertion of material facts with the intent to define the case, whereas proof, by contrast, is the evidence adduced to establish those facts as true. In certain eventualities issue of deficiency in pleadings cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. (Para 41) The nature and extent of pleading required in a case depends on the essence of the claim or to put it differently the type of proceeding. (Para 35)
Family arrangement - A family arrangement can be entered into even by way of an unregistered oral agreement and such family settlements are enforced by Courts as they are governed by special equity principles. (Para 49)
Case Info
Case name: Marietta D’Silva v. Rudolf Clothan Lacerda & Ors.
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 496
Coram: Manoj Misra, J. and Manmohan, J. (judgment authored by Manmohan, J.)
Judgment date: 15 May 2026, Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 31012 of 2025.
Statutes / laws referred:
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – especially Order VI Rules 1, 2 and 4 (pleadings: material facts vs evidence, special particulars)
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Sections 5(3), 13(1)(g), 13(2), 13(1)(l), 13(1)(k) (landlord-tenant relationship, bona fide requirement, comparative hardship, acquisition of alternative accommodation, change of user)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 3 and 8 (transfer of land and incidents, things attached to the earth/buildings)
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India (contrast with CPC pleadings)
Case laws and citations referred:
- Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491 (limits of granting relief on unpleaded case; exception where substance of case is known and tried)
- Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 555 (when deficiency in pleadings cannot be raised in appeal if parties knew the case and led evidence)
- Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh & Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 617 (distinction between facta probanda and facta probantia in pleadings)
- Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) Thr. LRs, (2012) 5 SCC 370 (nature of pleading in suits for possession/eviction)
- Kanaklata Das & Ors. v. Naba Kumar Das & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 352 (what landlord must plead and prove in an eviction suit under Rent Act)
- Bharat Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1988) 4 SCC 534 (pleadings in writs vs civil suits; facts plus evidence in writs)
- B.R. Mehta v. Atma Devi, (1987) 4 SCC 183 (alternate accommodation must be that of the tenant himself; discussed and distinguished on facts)
- Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770 (courts may take note of subsequent events to make relief meaningful)
- Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh v. Natwarlal Shamji Gada & Anr., 2026 INSC 416 (recent reiteration on considering subsequent events)
- Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 119 (family arrangements; can be oral and are specially favoured in equity)
- Hari Shankar Singhania & Ors. v. Gaur Hari Singhania & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 658, following K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 573 (family settlements; technicalities must give way to peace and harmony)
- Suresh @ Suryakant Ramchandra Chonkar v. Bhikaji Bhagwat Redkar, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1156 (Bombay High Court; alternative accommodation and Section 13(1)(l) B.R. Act)
Three‑sentence brief summary:The Supreme Court restored the eviction decree in favour of the landlady, holding that her status as co‑owner and co‑landlord and her bona fide requirement had been both properly pleaded in substance and duly proved, and that the Bombay High Court erred in upsetting concurrent findings on a hyper‑technical view of pleadings. The Court clarified the distinction between material facts and evidence (facta probanda vs facta probantia), reiterated that deficiencies in form of pleadings cannot be raised for the first time in appeal when parties have gone to trial knowing the real issues, and recognised that an oral family arrangement about use of flats and subsequent events could legitimately be relied on. On comparative hardship and alternative accommodation, it found that the tenants and their family members had suitable other premises and had even disposed of one flat during the suit to defeat eviction, whereas the landlady had no independent accommodation in Mumbai, so greater hardship clearly lay on her side.