1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1892/2007 Rameshchandra Mansukhlal Agrawal ..vs.. Smt. Savita Inderchand Agrawal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 26 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. 2. This is tenant's petition under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The respondent/landlord filed suit for eviction against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 16(1) (g) i.e. bonafide and reasonable need. The trial Court and the appellate Court concurrently held that the respondent/landlady has proved her bonafide and reasonable need. The issue of comparative hardship was also answered in favour of the respondent/landlady. 3. Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel invited my attention at Page No. 22 of the petition and argued that one 2 Shri Sheshrao was the owner of the suit property and the present respondent, who claimed to have purchased the suit property from Prakash, brother of Sheshrao, is not owner of the suit property. Mrs. Sirpurkar further contended that in view of the above said facts, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1987. She also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Budhu Mal ..vs.. Mahabir Prasad and others; (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 194. 4. As far as issue of denial of ownership of respondent/ landlady is concerned, the petitioner, for the first time before the lower Appellate Court, filed application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint. By this proposed amendment, the petitioner wanted to introduce theory that one Shri Sheshrao is owner of the suit premises and not Prakash, the predecessor-in-title of the respondent. This application for amendment was filed at the appellate stage was rejected by the lower appellate Court and 3 there is no dispute that this rejection was subsequently confirmed by the High Court. In that view of the matter, now the petitioner cannot contend that the respondent/ landlady or her predecessor-in-title was not owner of the suit property. Even otherwise also, the issue of ownership of the suit premises was considered by both the lower Courts and it was answered in favour of the respondent. 5. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Budhu Mal ..vs.. Mahabir Prasad and others (supra) is concerned, the same may not come to the rescue of the petitioner inasmuch as the Apex Court held that in a case of denial of ownership, the Small Causes Court has discretion to return or not to return the plaint. The Apex Court further held that in a suit instituted by the landlord against the tenant on the basis of contract of tenancy question of title could incidentally be gone into and that any finding recorded by Judge of the Small Causes Court, in this respect could not be res judicata in a suit based on title. 6. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to 4 interfere in the concurrent finding of the lower Courts in my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of any substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale