( 1 ) wp1231.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1231 OF 2011 Vasant s/o. Kashiram Sarode .. Petitioner (Died) through his L.R. Vandana w/o. Vijay Bharate Age. 55 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Badri Plot, Jamner Road, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. Versus Satish s/o. Mohanlal Agrawal .. Respondent Age. 60 years, Occ. Doctor & business, R/o. Badri Plot, Jamner Road, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. Mr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Sole respondent served – absent. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 26.08.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the ( 2 ) wp1231.11 order dated 20th September, 2010, passed by the learned District Judge-2, Jalgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2003, allowing the respondent/tenant to bring on record certain events that occurred during the pendency of the appeal by amending the written statement. 3. The petitioner is landlord before the Appellate Court. It is a rent control case. Original petitioner - Vasant initiated proceedings against the respondent/ tenant for eviction and his main ground was of bona fide requirement and the second ground was of default. At the trial stage original landlord succeeded and a decree of eviction was passed against the respondent/tenant. The respondent/tenant filed Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2003 before the District Court. During the pendency of the appeal original landlord Vasant died. His daughter, a legal representative was brought on record. Thereafter, the respondent/tenant made the application on which the impugned order was passed. In this application, respondent/tenant said that since the original landlord has died and since his daughter does not stay at Bhusawal -where suit house is situated, the ground of bona fide requirement pleaded by the original landlord does not exist any more. The learned Judge, despite opposition allowed the application. 4. The question is – Whether the order is lawful? My answer is in the NEGATIVE. ( 3 ) wp1231.11 5. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the Trial Court in which the learned Judge of the Trial Court after hearing the evidence of the original landlord Vasant held that he had proved his case of bona fide requirement. This finding recorded by the learned Judge of the Trial Court is the subject matter of the appeal. Even if the original landlord is died, his legal representative is brought on record and her duty is to support the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. The legal representative of the original landlord has no independent say in the case and she has to pursue the case of the late landlord. On the other hand, even the respondent/tenant cannot enlarge the scope of the case by making an attempt to include the facts which were not before the Trial Court when the judgment was given. The fact that original landlord Vasant had died, thus, has no bearing on the litigation. It is in a way irrelevant for deciding as to whether the learned Judge of the Trial Court had committed any error of fact or law while passing the impugned order. The scope of the appeal is thus limited to that extent and learned Judge of the Appellate Court by allowing the amendment in the written statement has clearly exceeded his powers. The order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 6. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Judge of the Appeal ( 4 ) wp1231.11 Court shall decide the appeal on merits and on the basis of pleadings and evidence that are part of the record of the Lower Court. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/AUG11/wp1231.11