Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1219 of 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4420 of 1996 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1218 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4420 OF 1996 Shri Sadashiv Vasantrao Kashid (since deceased through LRs) Sunita Kashid & ors. ...Applicant V/s. Shri Chandrakant Mahadeo Dalavi ...Respondent Mr. A.P.Ranade for the applicant. Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 28TH JANUARY, 2009 : 28TH JANUARY, 2009 : 28TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I am in agreement with the submission canvassed on behalf of the respondent landlord that this is an attempt to protract the proceedings on the basis of assertion which is devoid of merits. In the proposed amendment, the applicant has referred to three different premises which are stated to be at the disposal of the landlord. It is asserted by the applicant that the landlord is in possession of 600 sq. feet area of premises. This fact has been countered by the landlord in the reply affidavit. The landlord has plainly stated that no such premises admeasuring 600 sq. feet 2 are lying vacant as is stated in the proposed amendment. No rejoinder has been filed to that case made out by the landlord. It is merely a suggestion inviting the Court to make a roving enquiry. The obvious purpose is to protract the proceedings. 3. Then reference is made to another premises admeasuring 20 X 10 feet, possession whereof has been received by the landlord. In the reply affidavit the landlord has stated that this premises were available to the landlord even during the pendency of this Suit but no such grievance was made either in the written-statement or during the evidence adduced before the Trial Court. In the application as filed, the applicant himself concedes in paragraph 6 that said premises became available to the landlord during the pendency of the suit. However, no explanation is offered as to what prevented the applicant to take up that point in the written-statement filed before the Trial Court in the first instance and in any case during the recording of evidence. Once again reference made to this premises is obviously to protract the proceedings. 4. In the proposed amendment, reference is made to third premises admeasuring 5 X 7 feet which is stated to have been on leased recently to R.K.Gas Welding Works during the pendency of this writ petition. This 3 assertion clearly overlooks that the area of the suit premises is 40 X 40 feet and shade of 30 X 30 feet. By no stretch of imagination, premises such as 5 X 7 feet can satisfy the need of landlord which is pressed into service. 5. Taking any view of the matter, there is no merits in the application. The same is rejected. 6. Both applications are disposed of accordingly. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]