1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.85 OF 2010 ALONGWITH’ WRIT PETITION NO.86 OF 2010 Mr.Chandrakant G. Varadkar & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Mr.Bablu H. Barkatullah & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Kunal Bhanage for the petitioners in both the petitions. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9th March 2010. P.C.: . Notice for final disposal was issued by this Court. As far as Writ Petition No.85 of 2010 is concerned, the office remark shows that respondents have been duly served with the notice. In so far as Writ Petition No.86 of 2010 is concerned, the office noting shows that 1st to 4th respondents are duly served with the notice. The notice issued to respondent Nos.5 and 6 has been returned unserved with the remark “Left Premises”. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the 1st to 4th respondents are the tenants and 5th and 6th respondents were impleaded on the ground that they were unauthorised occupants of the suit premises and the said respondents have not contested the suit. 2. These two petitions take an exception to the orders passed by the trial Court in two separate suits filed by the petitioner for eviction under the 2 provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In both the suits application for amendment of the plaint was made by the petitioner. The amendment was for incorporating additional paragraph in the plaint for pointing out that defendants-tenants have denied right, title and interest of the petitioners as the owners and landlords. It is pointed out by the additional paragraph that the said contention raised by the tenants show that they are not ready and willing to observe the terms and conditions of the tenancy and as they have committed the breach of terms and conditions of the tenancy they are not entitled to protect their possession. Thus, in short, by the proposed amendment the petitioner wants to claim a decree for possession on additional ground of denial of title. 3. By the impugned orders, the applications have been rejected on the ground that when the applications were made, the trial had commenced. 4. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I find that the entire approach of the trial Court is erroneous. The amendment was sought on the basis of the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement. The petitioner wants to contend that now the possession of the tenants cannot be protected in view of the denial of title. To ensure that the defendants-tenants get notice of this contention, the amendment was sought which is based only on the averments made in the written statement. In the circumstances, the amendment ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. 3 5. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The applications made by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint are hereby allowed. (b) The amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date on which writ of this order is received by the trial Court. (c) It will be open for the defendants to file the additional written statement within a period of eight weeks from the date on which amended copy of the plait is served to the defendants. (d) Petitions are allowed in above terms. (e) Hearing of the suit is expedited. (A.S.OKA,J)