[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8049 OF 2008 Jayantrao M. Dhanwatey .... Petitioner Vs. B.K. Mirchandani (since deceased) & Ors. .... Respondents Shri David i/b M/s. David & Associates for the Petitioner. Shri M.K. Palan i/b M/s. M.K. Khatri & Co. for Respondent Nos.1(c) & 1(d). CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 12, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. The petitioner/landlord has challenged the part rejection of his amendment application. After considering the merit of the matter, the Court has granted amendment in part but rejected rest of the application. The dispute is between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord wants to add more grounds in the same suit against the same tenant specifically revolving around the same premises and alternate accommodation as contemplated under the part. In a given case if subsequent events can be taken note of in respect of the litigation, I see there is no reason not to allow such amendment at this stage pending the trial itself. It will avoid further multiplicity of the proceedings. [2] 2. The facet that the landlord can file suit for eviction on various grounds and, therefore, adding one or more grounds by this amendment at this stage, I see there is no reason not to grant this opportunity. Therefore, in the interest of justice this amendment application, as prayed, is allowed. However, all points/defences are kept open for the respondents 3. The petitioner to carry out the amendment within four weeks. The petition is accordingly allowed. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp8049.8 sjs/D8wp8049.8 sjs/D8wp8049.8