1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4403/2010. Ambadas Bhikaji Dhahake -: VERSUS :- The Additional Collector, Amravati and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2010. Heard Shri Y.P. Kaslikar, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent nos.3 to 10. Challenge is to concurrent orders passed by the Rent Controller as also by the Appellate Authority granting permission to respondent nos.3 to 10 to terminate the tenancy of petitioner under clause 13[3][vi]. Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned counsel for said respondents has stated that he had filed vakalatnama while opposing the prayer for restoration and he is still awaiting instructions on merits. 2 Shri Kaslikar, learned Counsel has contended that the Appellate Authority after remand of this Court failed to discharge the obligation cast upon it and has not considered the subsequent events. He has pointed out that new construction has been effected and similarly about 11 other tenants have vacated. These developments are not looked into by the Appellate Authority. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondents have supported the order. He contends that the material on record has been properly appreciated by the Appellate Court. The directions of this Court in remand order was to apply mind afresh to the material on record, as it noticed that the Appellate Authority then did not discuss any evidence. The impugned order pressed now shows consideration of need in the light of the number of members available in the family. The learned Counsel for petitioner is not in a position to point out to this Court whether the written statement filed before the Rent Controller was amended by the petitioner/tenant to bring on record the alleged subsequent events. It is apparent that if the subsequent events are not brought on record in accordance with law, the authorities cannot be expected to apply their mind to it. 3 In this situation, no case is made out warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.