VARIA PARAMBIL KUTTANversusENGINEER COMPONENTS AND EQUIPMENT

                                                                              -WP-8735-2025.DOC




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 8735 OF 2025


                      Varia Parambil Kuttan
                      Age 78 years, Occ: Retired
                      Flat No. D13, 4th Floor,
                      Golden and Silver Park
                      Co Society Housing Ltd,
                      Shivaji Nagar, Wagale Industrial
                      Estate, Thane – 400 604.

                      Also At V. P. Kuttan
                      Valiyaparambil House,
                      Via Cherpulassery,
                      Dist: Palakkad
                      State: Kerala – 679 503.                                  ...Petitioner

                            Versus

                      M/s Engineer Components
                      And Equipment
                      Plot No. 29, Road No. 10,
                      Wagale Estate, Thane – 400 604.                        …Respondent
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
                      Mr. C.S. Joshi, with Abhay Joshi, for the Petitioner.
Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
                      Dr. D. S. Hatle, with Deepak Jamsandekar, Nirmiti Lawane and
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.01.13
20:07:21 +0530
                             Umesh Chavan, for the Respondent.

                                                  CORAM:        N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                           RESERVED ON :        5th JANUARY 2026
                                       PRONOUNCED ON :          13th JANUARY 2026


                      JUDGMENT:




                      ARS                                1/16
                                                           -WP-8735-2025.DOC

1.       Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of

the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2.    By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the

Petitioner-Defendant assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an

order dated 15th February 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Thane, whereby the Applications (Exhibits 45 and 47)

in SCS No. 484 of 2017, preferred by the Petitioner, for framing

additional issues came to be rejected

3.    Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as

under:

3.1   The Respondent-Plaintiff is a partnership firm. The Plaintiff is

engaged in the business of fabrication. The Defendant was employed

with the Plaintiff as a “Foreman”. The Plaintiff claimed to have provided

to the Defendant a furnished accommodation, being Flat No. D-13, 3 rd

Floor, Golden and Silver Part Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Thane

(“the suit flat”) as a service tenant. The Defendant was to use and

occupy the suit flat till he was in the employment of the Plaintiff.

3.2   The Plaintiff asserts the Defendant resigned from the Plaintiff’s

firm with effect from 31st December 2007. Thereupon, the Plaintiff

called upon the Defendant to vacate the suit flat vide letter dated 24 th

August 2009. As the Defendant did not vacate the suit flat, a legal

notice was addressed to the Defendant on 6 th August 2010. In reply, the


ARS                                     2/16
                                                           -WP-8735-2025.DOC

Defendant contended that the suit flat was given to him by way of gift

on account of outstanding services rendered by the Defendant to then

partners of the Plaintiff. As the Defendant did not vacate the suit flat

despite repeated requisitions and the legal notice dated 15 th May 2017,

a Suit came to be instituted for the eviction of the Defendant under

Section 16(1)(f) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“the Rent

Act, 1999”).

3.3   The Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing Written

Statement. On the basis of the pleadings and material on record, the

trial Court settled issues on 22nd August 2024, inter alia, whether the

suit flat was let to the Defendant for use as the Defendant was in the

service of the Plaintiff, and whether the Defendant, in turn, proved that

the Plaintiff had allotted the suit flat to him on ownership basis.

3.4   The Defendant filed an Application (Exhibit 45) for framing

addition issues on the aspects of locus standi of the Plaintiff to institute

the Suit, existence of a cause of action, bar of limitation and proper

valuation of the suit claim and payment of proper Court fees thereon.

By way of another Application (Exhibit 47) the Defendant sought

framing of another additional issue; whether the title suit was

maintainable in the present form?

3.5   The Applications were resisted by the Plaintiff.




ARS                                   3/16
                                                         -WP-8735-2025.DOC

3.6   By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to

reject the Applications opining that the issues framed by order dated

22nd August 2024 were correctly settled to encapsulate the controversy

and adjudicate all the disputes between the parties, and the additional

issues proposed by the Defendant were not required to be framed as the

contentions in the Written Statement on those points were vague in as

much as one line objections were raised by the Defendant without

material particulars.

3.7   Being aggrieved the Defendant has invoked the writ jurisdiction.

4.    I have heard Mr. C.S. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

and Dr. D. S. Hatle, the learned Counsel for the Respondent at some

length. The learned Counsel took the Court through the pleadings and

the material on record.

5.    Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would urge that

the learned Civil Judge has decided the Applications for framing

additional issues in a causal and perfunctory manner. The Defendant

had raised specific grounds questioning the maintainability of the suit,

the bar of limitation and improper valuation of the suit claim. The

learned Civil Judge was, therefore, not at all justified in rejecting the

Applications by observing that the Defendant had raised one line

objections.




ARS                                  4/16
                                                          -WP-8735-2025.DOC

6.    Amplifying the submission, Mr. Joshi would urge that as there

was no material to indicate that, on the date of the institution of the

suit, the Plaintiff was a registered Partnership Firm and the person suing

had been shown as partner in the firm, the suit was clearly barred by

the provisions contained in Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act,

1932 (“the Act, 1932”). Secondly the Defendant had raised specific

ground of bar of limitation. In the reply to the legal notice, dated 6 th

August 2010, the Defendant had categorically denied the case of the

Plaintiff that the Defendant was a service tenant and, thus, institution of

the suit on 9th August 2017 was clearly barred by law of limitation.

7.    In opposition to this, Dr. Hatle, the learned Counsel for the

Respondent, would urge that, the Defendant had resorted to dilatory

tactics by filing one application after another so as to squat on the suit

flat despite the relationship of employer and employee having come to

an end in the year 2007. The instant Applications were part of the said

strategy. Dr. Hatle would submit that, the contentions in the Written

Statement regarding the maintainability of the suit, bar of limitation

and Court fees etc were bald and vague. The learned Civil Judge was,

therefore, fully justified in declining to frame additional issues on the

basis of such vague pleadings.

8.    I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid rival

submissions canvassed across the bar.


ARS                                   5/16
                                                              -WP-8735-2025.DOC

9.    The imperativeness of framing correct issues in a civil trial can

hardly be over-emphasized. Framing of correct issues is of critical

salience for a correct decision of the lis. The object of framing an issue

is to encapsulate the real dispute between the parties, narrow down the

area of controversy and tie down the evidence to be adduced in support

or rebuttal.

10.   A profitable reference, in this context, can be made to the

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Makhan Lal Bangal Vs

Manas Bhunia and Ors1

        “19. An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of
        framing the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that
        day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on
        which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and
        departures therefrom. The date fixed for settlement of issues
        is, therefore, a date fixed for hearing. The real dispute
        between the parties is determined, the area of conflict is
        narrowed and the concave mirror held by the court reflecting
        the pleadings of the parties pinpoints into issues the disputes
        on which the two sides differ. The correct decision of civil lis
        largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly
        determining the real points in controversy which need to be
        decided. The scheme of Order XIV of the Code of Civil
        Procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an
        issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is
        affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material
        proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other should
        form the subject of a distinct issue. An obligation is cast on

1     (2001) 2 SCC 652.
ARS                                     6/16
                                                            -WP-8735-2025.DOC

       the court to read the plaint/petition and the written
       statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the
       assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material
       propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at
       variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which
       the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their
       counsel are bound to assist the court in the process of framing
       of issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary
       obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to
       exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An
       omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for
       remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having
       been shown to have resulted by the omission. The petition
       may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the
       parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of
       fact and the court may at once pronounce the judgment. If
       the parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact,
       the suit or petition shall be fixed for trial calling upon the
       parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact. The evidence
       shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on
       controversies, not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall
       normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in
       support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him.
       The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and
       arguments and decision to a particular question so that there
       may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then
       proceeding issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the
       dispute was decided.


11.   Under the scheme of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (“the Code”), an issue arises when a material proposition of law or


ARS                                    7/16
                                                        -WP-8735-2025.DOC

fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. There ought to be

clear and categorical pleadings to necessitate framing of an issue. Bald

and vague contentions in the pleadings do not sustain an issue.

12.     In the case of Bhagat Singh and Ors Vs Jaswant Singh, 2 the

Supreme Court underscored the necessity of adequate pleading. It was

enunciated that a vague contention in the pleading would not cloth

such contention with the definiteness of the requisite pleading and will

not make it incumbent on the parties to lead evidence for or against the

existence of a certain custom and the Plaintiff’s case not coming within

it. The mere fact the Defendants contended in the Written Statement

that the Plaintiff could not be adopted according to the custom does not

tantamount to making the requisite pleas and, therefore, the view taken

by both the Courts below cannot be said to be wrong. In fact, this view

was in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XIV of the

Code.

13.     In the case of T. H. Musthaffa Vs M.P. Varghese & Ors, 3 the

Supreme Court reiterated that if the pleadings did not contain the

necessary foundation for raising an appropriate issue, the same cannot

go to trial. Any amount of evidence in that regard, however excellent

the same may be, will be futile.




2       AIR 1966 SC 1861.
3       (1999) 8 SCC 692.
ARS                                 8/16
                                                           -WP-8735-2025.DOC

14.   In Pandu Dhondi Yerudkar & Anr Vs Ananda Krishna Patil, 4 the

learned Chief Justice, in the context of framing an issue regarding the

tenancy, sounded a note of caution by observing that, a little caution is

required to be exercised before the Court actually frames such an issue.

Under Order XIV of the Code an issue can only arise when a material

proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the

other. When a vague plea is made by the Defendant contending that he

is tenant of the land, the Court should hesitate to frame such an issue

on such a vague plea, unless the Defendant is able to give particulars

showing the time when the tenancy was created, the person by whom it

was created, and the terms on which it was created. Normally the rules

of pleadings require that these particulars are the minimum particulars

which a man must furnish before he can request the Court to frame an

issue as regards the claim made for tenancy.

15.   The aforesaid being the position in law as regards the framing of

issues, reverting to the facts of the case, a bare perusal of the contention

in the Written Statement, especially in paragraph 15 under the caption

“preliminary objection” there are indeed bald and vague allegations. It

reads as under:

      “15) Preliminary objections:

      i)     This suit is not maintainable in Law.




4     AIR 1975 Bom 52.
ARS                                     9/16
                                                             -WP-8735-2025.DOC

      ii)    Not supported with bear documents. It is for the

      authorized signatory to prove his nexus with partnership firm

      and his locus-standi in the matter.

      Iii)   Act of Shri C. Ranganathan and Shri M Damodaran,

      partners of the company, in the year 1990 allotted the flat free

      of cost to this Defendant can well be construed act on behalf of

      partnership firm.

      iv)    Authorized partner’s right to sue to this Defendant third

      party is yet to be decided.

      v)     If affairs of the company completely wound up impliedly

      binding on agent the liability.

      vi)    Suit is lacking necessary party in the suit. Society is not

      cited as a party.

      vii)   Limitation — there is no any letter to this Defendant at

      the time of allotment of this flat in June 1990 about terms and

      conditions. From the entry itself it is evident that this flat is

      given free of cost to this Defendant which is confirmed from

      subsequent conduct of partners also. No flat rent, maintenance

      is deducted from his salary at any point of time. From which it is

      crystal clear that suit is barred by Limitation. This Defendant

      made it clear on 16.8.2010 his stand and suit filed in 9.8.2017

      by way of issuing various notices again and again is not tenable

      and suit is barred by Limitation.




ARS                                       10/16
                                                             -WP-8735-2025.DOC

      viii)   Court Fee — Suit flat value in the year 1990 was

      Rs.01,44,000.00 enhanced to Rs.02,50,000/- and present

      market value from ready-reckoner is Rs.50 to 60 Lakh (Fifty to

      Sixty Lakh). No Court fee is affixed when possession is claimed

      on the pretext of service quarter when this Defendant’s entry as

      an owner.

      ix)     No cause of action — Cause of action mentioned in suit is

      imaginary. On this count also suit is not maintainable.”



16.   In the wake of the aforesaid nature of the contentions in the

Written Statement, which lack material particulars to substantiate the

purported preliminary objection, the learned Civil Judge cannot be said

to have committed any error in observing that the Defendant had raised

vague and one line objections which do not warrant framing of the

additional issues.

17.   Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, urged two

grounds, principally. First, the bar of limitation. Second, the bar under

Section 69(2) of the Act, 1932. According to Mr. Joshi, the trial Court

ought to have framed the issues on these two points which go to the

root of the matter.

18.   On the first count, the thrust of the submission of Mr. Joshi, was

that since the reply to the first legal notice was given on 16 th August

2010, wherein the Defendant had made known his stand in clear and

ARS                                    11/16
                                                         -WP-8735-2025.DOC

categorical words, institution of the suit on 9 th August 2007 was clearly

barred by law of limitation. This submission is required to be

appreciated in the light of the nature of the suit. As noted above, the

suit has been instituted for eviction on the statutory ground provided

under Section 16(1)(f) of the Rent Act, 1999.

19.   The submission premised on the suit being one for reliefs sans a

declaration of title is wholly inapposite. For a suit for recovery of

possession under the provisions of the rent control legislation, the

period of limitation is 12 years, and not 3 years as was sought to be

canvassed by Mr. Joshi.

20.   The aforesaid position was clarified by the Supreme Court in the

case of Shakuntala S Tiwari Vs Hem Chand M Singhania, 5 wherein,

after an analysis of the provisions contained in the Limitation Act and

co-relating those provisions with the provisions of Section 12 and 13 of

the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947

(“the Rent Act, 1947”), the Supreme Court emphasized that either

Articles 66 or 67 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to a suit for

eviction of a tenant under the Rent Act, 1947, and, there is no scope of

the Application of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, in any view of the

matter.




5     AIR 1987 SC 1823.
ARS                                  12/16
                                                              -WP-8735-2025.DOC

21.   In case of Ganpat Ram Sharma             and Ors Vs Gayatridevi, 6 the

Supreme court further clarified that Article 66 would govern a case for

recovery of possession of the premises under Section 14 of the Delhi

Rent Control Act, 1958 because determination of tenancy by notice

under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was no longer

necessary. The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 22 are

material hence extracted below.

      “22. The next aspect of the matter is which article of the
      Limitation Act would be applicable. Reference was made to
      Article 66 and Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963
      (hereinafter called the Limitation Ac t) which stipulates that
      for possession of immovable property the cause of action
      arises or accrues when the plaintiff has become entitled to
      possession by reason of any forfeiture or breach of condition.
      Article 67   stipulates a period of twelve years when the
      tenancy is determined. Article 113 deals with suit for which
      no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule.
      On the facts of this case it is clear that Article 66 would apply
      because no determination in this case is necessary and that is
      well settled now. Determination by notice under Section 106
      of the Transfer of Property Act is no longer necessary.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)


22.   In view of the aforesaid position in law, there is no substance in

the contentions on behalf of the Defendant that the issue of limitation

was required to be framed.



6     AIR 1987 SC 2016.
ARS                                    13/16
                                                          -WP-8735-2025.DOC

23.   On the aspect of bar to the institution of the suit under Section 69

(2) of the Act, 1932, the submission of Mr. Joshi is clearly misconceived.

Suffice to note that, the bar under Section 69(2) of the Act, 1932 does

not govern a suit for recovery of possession in enforcement of a

statutory right. (Raptakos Brett & Co Ltd Vs Ganesh Property 7 and

Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr Vs Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Anr)8

24.     The last aspect which requires consideration is the treatment to

the contentions on behalf of the Defendant in regard to the proper

valuation of the suit claim and the Court fees thereon. The learned Civil

Judge was of the view that in the Plaint, the Plaintiff had undertaken to

pay the additional Court fees as may be ordered and, therefore, the

Plaintiff could be directed to pay requisite Court fees at the time of

passing of judgment, and, resultantly, the issue of correct valuation of

the suit claim and the Court fees thereon was not required to be framed.

25.   From the perusal of the averments in the Plaint, especially

paragraph 21 thereof, it becomes evident that the Plaintiff had valued

the suit claim at Rs.6,30,000/-, being the amount of the compensation

which the Defendant would be liable to pay and interest thereon. The

Plaintiff does not seem to have taken into account the value of the suit

claim for the purpose of eviction of the Defendant from the suit flat and




7     (1998) 7 SCC 184.
8     (2000) 3 SCC 250.
ARS                                  14/16
                                                            -WP-8735-2025.DOC

the Court fees required to be paid thereon under the provisions of the

Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959.

26.     Undoubtedly, the Court can direct the successful Plaintiff to pay

deficit Court fees. Yet, the framing of an issue regarding the correct

valuation of the suit claim and the Court fees that may be required to be

paid thereon, would equip the Court to determine those aspects in a

structured manner and the parties would also be in a better position to

adduce evidence and address the Court, if required, on the issue of the

correct valuation of the suit claim and the payment of the Court fees

thereon.

27.     Resultantly, this Court is of the view that the trial Court could not

have declined to frame an additional issue on the aspect of the proper

valuation of the suit claim and the Court fees required to be paid

thereon.

28.     Hence the Petition deserves to be partly allowed to the extent of

framing additional issue in regard to proper valuation and Court fees

only.

29.     Hence, the following order:

        (i)     Petition stands party allowed.

        (ii)    The Application (Exhibit 45) stands party allowed.

        (iii)   The following issue is framed as an additional issue:




ARS                                     15/16
                                                            -WP-8735-2025.DOC

             Whether the Suit claim is properly valued and appropriate

             Court fee is paid?

      (iv)   The trial Court shall decide the aforesaid issue along with

             all other issues at the time of final adjudication of the suit,

             as expeditiously as possible.



                                                  [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                   16/16