The Supreme Court has held that a writ petition cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to file a rejoinder to an affidavit introducing subsequent developments. The Court emphasized that all material on record must be examined before arriving at a conclusion, particularly in cases involving eviction on the ground of bona fide need.
The bench of Justice J.K.Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissal of the writ petition solely due to non-filing of a rejoinder was legally unsustainable. The Court observed that the affidavit filed by the defendants could at best be treated as additional material and must be assessed alongside the entire evidence already on record.
The case traces back to an eviction suit filed in 1994 under the Bombay Rent Control law. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of the original tenant, sought eviction of a sub-tenant occupying a portion of the premises in Mumbai on the ground of bona fide requirement. The Trial Court, after evaluating evidence, accepted the claim and granted a decree for eviction, noting that the premises were required for the privacy and residence of an elderly widow and her family.
However, the Appellate Court reversed this decree, holding that the death of the widow during the pendency of proceedings extinguished the bona fide need. This led the plaintiffs to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the defendants filed an affidavit alleging that another room in possession of the plaintiffs had been let out to third parties, thereby undermining their claim of bona fide need. Notably, the plaintiffs did not file a rejoinder to this affidavit.
The High Court relied heavily on this omission and dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the plaintiffs did not genuinely require the disputed premises.
The bench underscored that procedural lapses such as failure to file a rejoinder cannot override substantive justice, especially when the Trial Court had already recorded findings in favour of the plaintiffs after full evidence.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that while courts can take note of subsequent developments, such events must satisfy certain conditions—they must be brought on record properly, must allow the opposing party an opportunity to respond, and must materially affect the rights of the parties.
Importantly, the Court stressed that in eviction matters, the bona fide need of the landlord is ordinarily to be assessed as on the date of filing of the suit. Subsequent events can be considered only if they are of such magnitude that they completely eclipse the original requirement.
Observing that the High Court failed to evaluate the entire material and did not properly assess whether the alleged subsequent event had any real bearing on the plaintiffs’ claim, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order.
Case Details
Case Title: Maria Martins Versus Noel Zuzarte And Others
Citation: JURISHOUR-809-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (C) NO.11349 OF 2025
Date: 16/04/2026
