{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4298 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2007 Saraswati w/o Daduram Rathod Died Thru LRs APPLICANTS VERSUS Shriram Mohanlal Agrawal Died Thru LRs RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for applicant Mr. B.S.Kudale, Advocate for respondents ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. By this application, the applicants seek leave to allow to amend the civil revision application by adding para X in the grounds of objections, as “The rent controller had admittedly not given 15 days time for payment of rent to the landlord for holding tenant as willful defaulter as per proviso to sec. 15 (2) (i) of Hyd. Houses (Rent Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, which is mandatory”. The application is opposed by learned counsel for the {2} respondents by filing affidavit in reply. It is contended that the application is filed at a belated stage and hence the amendment cannot be allowed. 2. During the course of submissions, my attention is drawn towards the operative part of the order dated 04.09.2007, which is impugned in the civil revision application No.191/2007. Para 4 of the operative part reads thus - “The non applicants are given 15 days time for depositing the rent amount, on the ground of eviction and habitual default.”. My attention is further drawn towards three suits filed by the respondents for recovery of rent. The said suits were decreed and the Regular Civil Appeals filed by the applicants, challenging the decrees, were also dismissed. Considering this aspect and the fact that the civil revision application is of the year 2007, there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that this amendment is sought at a very belated stage only with a view to protract the matter. 3. Admittedly, civil revision application No.191/2007 is field in the year 2007 challenging the order dated 04.09.2007. When the civil revision application came up for hearing and when the learned counsel for the applicant came to know that no ground is taken in respect of 15 days statutory notice u/s 15 (2) (i) of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act, the present application is moved. Considering the fact that the application is moved at a belated {3} stage, it is clear that this application is not bona fide, however the same is filed only with a view to protract the possession, if to be handed over to the respondents. 4. In the result, the civil application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca4298-10 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2007 Saraswati w/o Daduram Rathod Died Thru LRs APPLICANTS VERSUS Shriram Mohanlal Agrawal Died Thru LRs RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for applicant Mr. B.S.Kudale, Advocate for respondents ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. Now, as the application seeking amendment is rejected, the Civil Revision Application to be shown for hearing on 16th April 2010. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/ca4298-10