1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7359 OF 2004. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10308 OF 2005. Buddhu Kanhaiya Gavali and others ... Petitioners. Versus Mahmadu Khannoo Gawali and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.M.Gholap, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Patil, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 4. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 formal parties. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners' application for 2 amendment of the plaint came to be dismissed. The petitioners asserted in their suit (RCS No. 57/95) that plot City Survey No.3870 is owned by them and was given to the defendants by way of implied lease at will out of good will and favour. It is stated in the plaint that due to the fact that the defendants are distant relatives, such license was granted. The plaint does not show any kind of rent agreement. It is also stated that the defendants started claiming adverse possession against the title and ownership of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the amendment application after about six (6) years and five (5) months. By the proposed amendment they wanted to introduce one paragraph in the plaint in order to show that due to denial of their title and separate claim set up by the defendants, they are entitled to claim possession. It appears that they wanted to claim forfeiture of the tenancy under the proposed amendment. 3. Not only that the amendment application was filed after a long drawn period of six years 3 and five months but that in order to claim forfeiture of tenancy U/s 111 of the Transport of Property Act,the petitioners were required to come out with a case that there existed tenancy agreement between the parties. Their pleadings go to show that the suit property bearing CTS No. 3870 was given to the defendants due to goodwill and gratuitously. In this view of the matter, the proposed amendment is inconsistent to the stand taken in the plaint. No interference is called for. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The final hearing of the suit be expedited and the same be decided within a period of one (1) year as far as possible. C.A. disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp735904