Supervisory jurisdiction and pleading sufficiency limit interference with concurrent findings of unlawful subletting under CPC.

Pleadings under Order 6 Rule 2(1) CPC need only state material facts concisely, not evidence, and fuller particulars may be given where necessary under Order 6 Rule 5 CPC. A plaint that clearly identifies the original tenant and alleges unlawful induction of occupants during the suit is sufficient, even if some averments are made by way of abundant caution. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, a High Court should not disturb concurrent findings of unlawful subletting on a mere pleading objection when the material facts are adequately conveyed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the concurrent finding of eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting, on the view that the plaint did not contain sufficient averments and that the tenant had not been properly pleaded.

Analysis: The plaint clearly described the original tenant and, on her death, the uncertainty regarding the true heirs was only an abundant-caution pleading that could not be used to defeat the landlords' case. The amended plaint also conveyed the material allegation that the occupants had been unlawfully inducted during the pendency of the suit. Under Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, pleadings need contain only material facts in concise form and not evidence, while Order 6 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows fuller particulars if necessary. The High Court, in supervisory jurisdiction, ought not to have upset concurrent factual findings on so fragile a pleading objection.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted, and the finding of unlawful subletting sustained by the trial court and appellate court was not to be disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The eviction decree was restored and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In supervisory jurisdiction, a High Court should not overturn concurrent findings of unlawful subletting merely because the plaint is said to be inexact, where the pleadings sufficiently convey the material facts required by Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---