IN THE HIGH COUT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8278 OF 2009 Prabhakar Eknath Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mahesh Veer Kumar Shete .... Respondent Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent under the provisions of section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short “the said Act of 1999). The suit is based on the notice dated 2nd April, 2007. A written statement has been filed in which the specific contention has been raised in para 12 that the notice relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff is illegal and suit on the basis of the notice is not maintainable. 3. An application for amendment of the written statement was made by the petitioner. By the amendment, a legal contention was sought to be added that the notice is neither in accordance with Section 15 of the said Act of 1999, nor in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The said application for amendment has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, I find that there is no error in the final order passed by the trial court rejecting the application for amendment. The petitioner has already raised a contention in his written statement that the notice relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff is illegal and a suit based on the said notice is not maintainable. As and when the trial court considers the question of passing a decree under Section 15 of the said Act of 1999, the trial court is bound to consider whether the notice on which the suit is founded is legal and proper. As stated earlier, a contention has already been raised by the petitioner that the notice is not legal and proper. What was sought to be pleaded by the petitioner was law. Such amendment was not at all necessary as the contention sought to be raised by the amendment already finds place in para 12 of the written statement. 5. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. The Writ Petition is rejected. A.S. OKA, J.