1 W.P.No.6365_2011.sxw jsn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6365 OF 2011 Jagdevappa C. Basvanti -- Petitioner V/s. Smt. Shardabai B. Aandage & Ors. -- Respondents Mr. Sameer A. Kumbhakoni for the Petitioner. Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21st December, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff / landlord and Respondents are Defendants. A suit for ejectment is filed by the Petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ( hereinafter referred to the said act, 1999). The challenge in this Petition under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order of the Trial Court, by which application made by Respondents for framing additional issue is allowed. Following is the additional issue framed under the impugned Order: “Whether the Plaintiff proves that the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required for immediate purpose of demolishing and erecting new building on premises sought to be demolished’? 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that what is pleaded in the plaint is the ground of eviction 2 W.P.No.6365_2011.sxw under clause ‘g’ of sub section 16(1) of the said Act, 1999. He submitted that there is a specific pleading that after obtaining possession of the suit premises, the Petitioner wants to occupy the suit premises for his own use. He submitted that the ground under clause (i) of Sub section 16(1) is not at all pleaded. He invited the attention of the Court to the decision of the Apex Court in the case Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta V. Indradaman Amratlal Sheth, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1676. 3. Under clause ‘i’ referred to above, a separate ground is created, which is applicable when the premises are reasonably and bonafide required by the landlord for immediate purpose of demolishing it and where such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building in place of the premises, which is sought to be demolished. When the ground under clause ‘i’ is invoked, there is a further compliance required to be made by the Landlord under Sub Section 6 of Section 16 of the said Act, 1999. The decision of the Apex Court considers the scope of clauses ‘hh’ and ‘g’ of sub section (1) of Sec.13 of the earlier Rent Control Act of 1947 which has been repealed. 4. It is true that in paragraph 4 of the plaint there is a specific pleading that the suit premises is required by the Petitioner for his own use. However, there is also a specific pleading that immediately after 3 W.P.No.6365_2011.sxw obtaining possession of the suit premises from the Respondents, the Petitioner intends to demolish the building in which suit premises situated and intends to construct a new building and use the ground floor therein for the purposes of his own use. Therefore, on plain reading of paragraph 4, perhaps the Petitioner has pleaded both the grounds under clauses (i) and (g). In view of the said avernments, the additional issue has been framed. 5. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. If Petitioner does not want to press one of the grounds agitated or that if he wants to amend the plaint by deleting certain portion, he can always apply to the Trial Court in that behalf. All contentions of the parties in that behalf are expressly kept open. 6. Subject to what is observed above, the Writ Petition is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J ]