NON REPORTABLE

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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

Transmarine Corporation & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

Zensar Technologies Ltd. & Ors.        …Respondents

        O R D E R  

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1. Leave granted.   

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

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