IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.163 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1173 OF 2009 (Smt. Latika Sharad Joshi and another vs. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri V.V. Bhangde, Advocate for appellants. Shri D.L. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondents. -------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : JULY 23, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this letters patent appeal, the appellants have impugned the order dated 16/7/2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1173/2009. By this order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the order passed by the competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, “the Act”) on 30/12/2008 allowing the amendment - 2 - application filed by the respondent-landlord. The appellants have also impugned the order dated 21/2/2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur upholding the order dated 30/12/2008 passed by the competent Authority. By way of amendment, the respondent landlord sought permission to replace paragraph 3 in the original application under Section 23 of the Act with the paragraph no.3 in the application for amendment (annexure “D” to the appeal). Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submitted that by way of an amendment, the admission/original pleadings cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for respondent no.2/landlord, on instructions, fairly submits that respondent no.2/landlord will not withdraw/delete paragraph no.3 in the application under Section 23 of the Act and he would simply add therein paragraph 3 from the amendment application as paragraph 3-a in the said application. His statement - 3 - is accepted. In view of the statement made by learned Counsel for respondent no.2, challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that by way of amendment, respondent no.2/landlord is allowed to withdraw his earlier pleadings/admissions, i.e. paragraph 3 in the original application does not survive and hence, the appeal is dismissed. The competent Authority shall allow the respondent no.2/landlord to carry out the amendment without allowing him to delete paragraph 3 or any portion thereof from the original application under Section 23 of the Act. It is open to respondent no.2/landlord to explain as to why he was required to carry out amendment by leading evidence in the course of hearing of the original application under Section 23 of the Act. It is open to the appellants to file additional pleadings, if so advised. JUDGE JUDGE khj