1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.893 OF 2010 Shartad Dattatraya Tapray Petitioner versus Smt.Pankunwar Nemichand Parmar and others Respondents Mr.R.M.Pethe for petitioner. Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for respondents 1(b), 1(c), and 1(d). CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21st April 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Notice for final disposal was issued by this Court. The petitioner has filed a suit under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") against respondent nos.1(a) to 1(e). Respondent nos.2(a) and 2(b) are stated to be the co-owners of the suit property along with the petitioner. It appears that during pendency of the suit a sale deed was executed on 10th February 2006 by respondent no.2(a) in favour of respondent nos.1(c) and 1(d). Certain contentions based on the sale deed has been allowed to be raised by permitting the amendment of the written statement by this Court. An application was made by the petitioner at Exhibit-145 seeking addition of following four paragraphs :- "9A. The alleged purchase of 1/3rd share of the suit 2 property by the Defendant Nos.1C and 1D by the alleged sale deed dated 10.02.2006 is bad in law and beyond any consideration by this Hon'ble Court. 9B. Even otherwise, since the said mala fide actions taken by the Defendant Nos.1C and 1D in collusion with the Defendant No.2A is during the pendency of this suit, the alleged purchase can supersede the rights already accrued to the Plaintiff. 9C. Moreover, the Defendant No.2A, his wife and his son did not have the alleged share allegedly sold by them to the Defendant Nos.1C and 1D. 9D. In no event hence, the right of the Plaintiff as the landlord to seek possession already accrued to the Plaintiff can not be taken away nor defeated by such actions prompted by mala fide intentions and ulterior motives on the part of the Defendant Nos.1C and 1D on the one part and the Defendant No.2A on the other". 2. After having heard submissions of the learned counsel for the parties I find that amendment was based on the contentions which were raised by respondents 1c and 1d by carrying out the amendment to the written statement. The amendment of written statement was essentially carried out for contending that in view of acquisition of undivided share in the suit property by respondents 1a and 1c, the suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The proposed amendment is essentially sought for dealing with the said contention raised in the written statement and for contending that the sale deed allegedly executed during pendency of the suit will have no effect on the maintainability of the suit, and the prayers in the suit will have to be considered as on the date of filing of the suit. The Trial Court has observed that the contentions which are sought to be raised by the proposed amendment cannot be considered by the Court of Small Causes. 3 3. The approach of the Court is erroneous. The Court could not have gone into the merits of the text of the amendment. This is not a case where the petitioner was seeking any relief which could not have been granted by a Court of limited jurisdiction under section 33 of the said Act of 1999. Hence, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the amendment will have to be permitted. 4. Hence, I pass following order :- A) The impugned order dated 20th November 2009 is quashed and set aside; B) The application at Exhibit-145 is hereby allowed; C) Amendment shall be carried out within two weeks from the date on which writ of this order is received by the Trial Court, D) It is obvious that the concerned defendants will be entitled to file additional written statement dealing with the amended portion of the plaint; E) The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)