1 W.P.No.8220/10 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8220 OF 2010. 1. Omprakash S/o Rajaram Basaiye, Age 62 years, Occ.Agriculture and Business, R/o Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 2. Mathurabai Wd/o Shaligram Basaiye, Age 62 years, Occ. Household, R/o Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 3. Dayaram S/o Rajaram Basaiye, Age 58 years, Occ.Agriculture and Business, R/o Gulmandi, Aurangabad. 4. Jagannath S/o Rajaram Basaiye, Age 56 years, Occ.Agriculture and Business, R/o Gulamandi, Aurangabad. 5. Rajendra S/o Rajaram Basaiye, Age 47 years, Occ.Agriculture and Business, R/o Gulmandi, Aurangabad, Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 through their General PPower of Attorney Holder, Petitioner No.1. ... Petitioners. Versus Suresh S/o Godumal Alias Gowardhandas Wadhwani, Age 57 2 W.P.No.8220/10 years, Occ.Business, R/o Near Shrikrushna Mandir, Fakirwadi, Aurangabad and Shop No.3, House No.4-5-95 Gulmandi, Aurangabad. ...Respondent. ... Mr.S.R.Deshpande, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.D.Kasliwal, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.06.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner has filed a suit for eviction against the present Respondent who is a tenant, on the various grounds including bonafide requirement. The plaintiff led his evidence. Thereafter, filed an affidavit of witness No.2. The witness No.2 along with his affidavit produced a notice received to him from the 3 W.P.No.8220/10 Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, directing to hand over possession of property bearing CTS No. 4453 being affected in road widening. The petitioner claims to be a tenant over that property. The petitioner thereafter, moved an application for amendment incorporating the fact that the property is being affected in road widening and that a notice has been received from the Municipal Corporation for handing over possession to the landlord. The said amendment application came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice received to the landlord dated 20.8.2008 for transfer of the property being affected in road widening of which the petitioner is a tenant is a subsequent event that is after filing of the suit. The same is relevant and the subsequent events can always be pleaded and looked into. The learned counsel submits that it was an error on the part of the trial Judge to reject the amendment application on the ground that it is filed after the trial 4 W.P.No.8220/10 has commenced. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh" reported in (2009) 10 SCC 626 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. Precious Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd.," reported in 2008 (1) Mh.L.J. 331. 5. The learned counsel further contends that the merits of the amendment application are not to be considered while dealing with the amendment application. The present amendment has nothing to do with the defence nor inconsistent plea is being sought to be raised. 6. Mr.Kasliwal, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. bars the present application. Admittedly, the same has been filed after the trial has commenced. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another" reported in 2009 (4) 5 W.P.No.8220/10 Mh.L.J. 30. The learned counsel further contends that development plan was prepared in 2001, as such it was very much within the knowledge of plaintiff about the said fact. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is a tenant of the said CTS No.4453. In view of all the above facts, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 7. One of the ground for eviction in the plaint is bonafide requirement. The ground agitated by the amendment would in no manner change the nature of suit. It is a trite law that the merits of the amendment are not to be considered while dealing with the amendment application. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of the property i.e. the subject matter of notice dated 20.8.2008, in the capacity of a tenant would be a matter to be considered while dealing with the suit. The subsequent event has been brought on record which according to the plaintiff is in aid of the ground of bonafide requirement. The proviso to order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. would not be 6 W.P.No.8220/10 applicable for the reason that the event sought to be introduced is a subsequent one i.e. after filing of the suit. The said notice is issued to the landlord. In such circumstances, it can not said that there is a delay and the same can be attributed to the petitioner. 8. In view of the above conspectus, I am inclined to allow the application for amendment. 9. The amendment application Exh.53 in Rent Suit No.27/2007 is allowed on the petitioners paying cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) to the Respondent within a period of three (3) weeks from today. 10. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. However,there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp822010 7 W.P.No.8220/10