jpc 1 wp10492-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10492 OF 2011 Dattatreya Gundu Patil and another ... Petitioners Versus Shri Ajit Pandurang Patil ... Respondent Mr. V. B. Rajure, for the petitioners CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 20th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 17th October, 2011 passed by the learned 10th Joint Civil Judge, Kolhapur, by which order the Application Exh.60 for amendment of the issue no.1 and framing of an additional issues in respect of tenancy came to be allowed to the extent of amending the Issue no.1 but was rejected the in respect of framing of the additional issue in respect of the tenancy. 2. The trial Court rejected to frame the additional issue of tenancy on the ground that it is the plaintiff’s own case that there is business of garage in the suit property and that it is not the the case of the plaintiff that they are cultivating the land in question. The trial Court was of the view that since the suit property cannot come within jpc 2 wp10492-11.sxw the ambit of Section (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, since it is neither used for agricultural nor is the site of the dwelling house occupied by the agriculturist, agricultural labour, there was no warrant to frame the said issue of tenancy. The trial Court further observed that the pleading in respect of tenancy is very vague, in as much as the plaintiffs have have neither mentioned the amount of rent and other details, though tenancy was claimed. 3. In my view the reasons mentioned by the trial Court in the impugned order for rejection of the application for framing of additional issue of tenancy cannot be taken exception to. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)