:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3721 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3721 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3721 OF 2009 Shakuntala J. Wasta ..Petitioner versus Sardar Kamalbir Singh & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. M. Gorwadkar for the Petitioner. Ms. Ranjana Parikh with Ms. Soma Singh with Mr. Suraj Shah i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the appellate court dated 19.3.2009 allowing amendment of the plaint. 3. The petitioner is a tenant. The respondents have filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide need. Earlier, the matter came before this Court when the respondents had :2: challenged the dismissal of their suit and the appeal. This Court considered the matter and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to remand the matter since according to the petitioner the bonafide need pleaded by the respondents has gone out of existence and according to the respondents there are certain subsequent events which consider it desirable to decree the suit. This Court therefore remanded the matter back to the appellate court. Before the appellate court the respondents applied for amendment of the plaint. In grounds A to O of the Schedule the respondents pleaded grounds pertaining to their allegedly enhanced bonafide requirement and need and in grounds P to Z they pleaded the circumstances which would show that no hardship would be caused to the defendant if the suit was decreed. The appellate court allowed the amendment application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the remand was restricted to whether the bonafide need of the respondents increased during the intervening period and whether the petitioner shows that subsequent events justified the refusal of the decree. According to the learned counsel, there was no scope permitting :3: any amendment pertaining to whether the petitioner would or would not suffer hardship in case the decree was passed. It is possible to take a very strict view of the remand and agree with the petitioner. However, the circumstances of the case show that during remand this Court intended that the appellate court to consider the question whether the respondents bonafide need has gone out of existence and whether the subsequent events asserted by the respondents asserts that their bonafide need has enhanced. In other words, this Court considered it appropriate to remand the case to permit the parties to establish their case of bonafide and reasonable need for other family members. There is no doubt that the question of comparative hardship becomes a relevant factor in such a dispute where the landlord alleges that he requires premises bonafide for his occupation. The appellate court has allowed an amendment which is not extraneous to the issues between the parties but is relevant for adjudication of the real dispute between the parties. It is settled law that the amendment should be allowed to enable the court to adjudicate the real questions in controversy between the parties. Therefore, in the circumstances if the court has permitted the respondents to allege facts pertaining to the :4: comparative hardship between the parties, the order of the appellate court cannot be said to suffer from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. There is no merit in the matter, which is hereby dismissed. Needless to say that the appellate court will have due regard to its observation in paragraph 7 of the order. 5. Rule answered accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)